Re: [Leica] SLR lenses

[Dennis Painter <dennis@hale-pohaku.com>]

"Michael E. Bérubé" wrote:

> OK so this year I've decided I want to phase out my bloated minolta SLR kit
> and replace it with a leaner Leica SLR kit. My rangefinders have pretty
> much replaced my SLRs for everyday shooting, but I like the SLRs for tele
> and macro/closeup work. (I don't even really use the 90 range much on my
> RFs preferring them for normal to wide work only.)
>
> I have read most of the excellent information that a few of the LUG's SLR
> users have available online recently. I require total mechanical operation
> and independence from batteries in my SLRs, so I've pretty much ruled out
> the electronic shuttered Rs and have decided that I want to pick up two
> nice SL2s or maybe a used R6.2 and an SL/SL2 as a backup.
>
> My questions are on the lenses...Having a 50 Summicron prime in the kit is
> a given, but what is the best bang for the buck (in your opinion) for
> longer glass? The 35-70 is a zooms are lenses that I have for my minolta
> kit that get a lot of work,

<snip>
If your Leica RF has replaced the SLR for everyday shooting, why would you need
that zoom, (35-70) for the reflex? Your comments make it sound like you are
going to replace the Minolta with Leica (that's fine, but the in the end the
weight will be way more than Minolta)

I am really the last person to ask about lenses. I am a die hard RF person and
(thanks this list ;-) have recently got a SL and have the 60 Macro and 400
f/6.8. That pretty much covers the bases for close up and tele work for me,
except I would like the 2x for the Macro to get 1:1 without a tube.

I believe the 80-200 f/4.0 has gotten good reviews on this list. I have though
about it but it doesn't fill any niche for me.

Doug Herr is right, the 400 is about the best all round lens for wildlife, and
the price is often cheap in Leica terms.

Best of luck,
Dennis