Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the key is not whether the design has been modified, but whether 1) you would ever focus closer than 3 feet with the 50, and 2) will you spend many frames wider than F4. The decision for the DR is easy if occasionally you would like to focus close. Likewise, if you mostly shoot somewhere beyond F2.8 then a clean collapsible Summicron can offer very good value especially if your main subject is usually near the center of the frame; rule of thirds composition. It is only hard if you frequently shoot near F2 and you don't care if you can't focus close. Living in LA, you might be able to satisfy your question by "borrowing" a copy of both lenses and shooting with both under same conditions. If you can't see a difference then buy the least expensive. If you can see a difference but only if you use slow film on a tripod with 1/500 second or higher then buy the cheapest. On the other hand, if you can see a difference in either the outer zones or one renders the subject in the fashion you find attractive then buy that lens if you can afford it. The most expensive lens is the one that you buy because it is cheap but you replace later because it doesn't perform the way you want it to. That statement also includes your mental state. For example, if you have always wanted a DR just because, then no number of fine lenses will make you happy until you have a DR. Don Dory dorysrus@mindspring.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html