Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"If the performance of the 17-35 Nikon at full aperture is good enough for you, and you can take the distortion, go for it." I did, succesfully. The perfection, which by other way does not exist, is plenty of limitations. If you can have a f1:2,8 wich allow you to take pictures otherwise you cannot why not to have it? The matter is that Carl Zeis, Leica and so on cannot reach their perfection in a kind of lenses as a 14mm f1:2,8, or a zoom like 16-35 f1:2,8. Carl Zeiss approached the aim with his 24-85 3,5-4 but they have not a camera with the same big class. I can use a M6 with ASPH lenses and a day after use a digital D30 from Canon. This morning I did in a portfolio of churches from my town. The D30 was used in 100 ASA for exteriors and at 800 ASA and Image Stabilization lenses in interiors. Very nice output. Never the quality of a Leica lens. Differents tools for different aims. Why not? I do not wish to say "this" and nothing more... Kind regards Félix PD I "should" love nevertheless to have a Leica SLR autofocus with f1:2,8 zooms, low distortion, good sharpness, in two bodies one for film, another for 24x36 mm CCD digital 6Mgpixels. Nice dream! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html