Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim; I used mine primarily at night or indoors, and it just didn't snap into focus in the finder like the other lenses did. I constantly "searched" for my zone of focus due to a perceived dimness. Frankly, that's my experience, that you had a more positive and enriching bonding with your 24mm is certainly commendable. But, it doesn't leave me convinced , and while I'm might be that much the poorer for not being able to accept the "obvious," It's a cross I'm willing to bear. best, Slobodan Jim Brick wrote: > > I bought a 24-R in 1976 and used it until two years ago, basically 25 > years. It was one of my most used lenses including the polarizer that > turned within the hood. A few years after buying the 24, I bought a 19-R > lens. Obviously the old style as it was around 1978 or 79. I used both for > about 10 years then sold the 19mm and bought a 15mm Super-Elmar. > > In my ten years of having both lenses, I do not ever remember coming to the > conclusion that the 24 was "dimmer" than the 19. They both were bright > enough for easy use. They were mainly used on three R4sP's. > > Anyway, this is not a point to argue. I used both lenses side by side and > found them to be equal in usability. > > Jim > > At 11:31 AM 1/7/01 -0800, S Dimitrov wrote: > >Try looking through a current prism with the 24, and find out for yourselves. > > > >Slobodan > > > >Jim Brick wrote: > >> > >> >On 07-01-2001 17:39, S Dimitrov wrote: > >> > > >> >>My 19, old design, was brighter in the > >> >>viewfinder than the 24 mm. > >> > > >> At 06:10 PM 1/7/01 +0100, Pascal wrote: > >> > > >> >how can that be as the both have an identical max aperture of 2.8 ? > >> > > >> >Pascal > >> > >> It must be an optical delusion. > >> > >> Jim > >