Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]><Snip> > Given I've said my anti whining piece. ;-) Let me ask. How many LUGnuts > would consider using the R 100mm 2.8 macro or any 100 mm lens, as a "normal > lens?" Or as a better than 50mm for a broad base of shooting opportunities? > > Think about it for a moment before answering and imagine the opportunities > one can use this interesting lens for; as a kind of general use, scenic, > close-up, portrait, macro, copying and a bunch more situations. One can even > use a 2X extender and make it quickly into a 200 mm lens or be bold and add > a macro extender turning the standard macro into a super macro for real > inside water drop images. > > Any thoughts folks along the use of this lens? > ted Let me preface this by saying i just got a 120 macro for my Hasselblad and although my newest piece of gear tends to get used the most I've fond myself having to use the other lenses just as much, my 80 and 50 and my last job this week required those and the 120 did not get used. I've gone out on big walks with my Hassy but no guts as to having that new lens on the camera. I suspect i'd feel the same on the R 100mm 2.8 macro. Too much heavy pricy glass. Although the 100 is THE reason for myself and a lot of people getting into SLR and Leica R instead of M is that the lens to knock around with all day like you do with your Knock-toe-lux? The 60 macro seems a more happening thing. To me at least. IF i was going to get the 100 and an R8 but then wanted to have the camera with me all day... I'd have to save up even more money and get the 60 or the awsome new 50. I wouldn't wast my money on wides which for me is rangefinder territory. TGIF Mark Rabiner and then get the 180 2.8 Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/