Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Leicaholic
From: Doug Herr <telyt@earthlink.net>
Date: 11 Feb 2001 07:18:03 -0800

On Sat, 10 February 2001, Jem Kime wrote:

> 
> Bob,
> You'll kick yourself for not getting a solid old wetzlar SL/SL2 if the R3/4 
> goes wrong.
> The surprising thing, I think, is the comparitive values placed on the SL 
> and SL2. Quite why the SL is so cheap I don't know, it does 95% of what the 
> SL2 does but sells for sometimes less than half the price.
> If you want to mount three extra lenses and meter a stop (or two?) further 
> into the darkness then buy the SL2, if not, then save a bundle and sneak an 
> SL home.
> 
> Jem.
> 

The pricing of the SL vs. the SL2 is related more to scarcity than to function.  I think Stephen Gandy's website lists SL production at about 30,000 and SL2 considerably less.

Initially the SL2 used 3 more lenses than the SL but there are at least 3 more now that may be used on the SL2 and not on the SL: all 3 current-production Summilux-R lenses (35, 50, 80).  I think of the SL2 as the dim-light Leicaflex and the SL as the general-purpose Leicaflex.  IMHO, the SL2 is better if you need to use an SLR in near-Noctilux conditions and the SL is better for every other SLR application.


Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
 Better!  Faster! More Powerful!
 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
 http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/