Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/26

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] R8/R9 Digital Back announced
From: "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:16:14 -0400

Well George, for all intents and purposes, a 1.37 is a 1.4 - which is the factor I used. I really think it's a hoot to see someone say that 
Their 21 would get more use as a 29 - why own a 21? Sell it and get a 28! And a 35 does fine as a 48? Not in my bag - a 48 is a 50, which I hardly ever use; a 35 is a moderate wide angle, and I use it all the time. As to the rest, yes, a 60 macro as an 82 probably is an improvement, but the rest? I own a 180 and that's it - I have no use for long telephotos.

I really love the rationalization here. If these converted focal lengths are improvements, why own the lenses you now own? :-) One of the things keeping me from converting to digital - as I can't event consider the Canon 1Ds with it's full frame, is the loss of wides, the loss of fast glass, the fact that the 85 1,4 - a fabulous Nikon lens and a great focal length, becomes a 120.....I choose the lenses I choose because they are the focal lengths I want.

B. D.


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of George Lottermoser
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:58 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] R8/R9 Digital Back announced


bdcolen@earthlink.net (bdcolen)6/26/03

>Do the math, George - Your 85 I going to turn into a 119...

OK, BD: I believe the math would go something like this 
85 x 1.37 = 116.45mm - as in all things - compromise will find the middle way I still like the idea of a 116.5mm 1.4. :-) In fact if I go on down the list of my R glass:
    the 21 would actually get more use as the 29mm it would become
    35 would do fine as a 48
    60 macro as 82 - I really like this alot
    180 as 247 - now this one I¹ve got a serious problem with - looks like I¹ll have to get a 135, never thought I¹d say that - as 135 is the one focal length I¹ve never liked.
    400 as 548 - I like this alot
    then of course we can add the 1.4x and 2x for additional fun
    
As far as my not being close enough - judge my images on their merit or lack there of - not my position in the world - when I want close - I get close.

Fond regards,

G e o r g e   L o t t e r m o s e r,    imagist

<€>Peace<€>   <€>Harmony<€>  <€>Stewardship<€>

Presenting effective messages in beautiful ways
                                     since 1975 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
web	                          <www.imagist.com>
eMail                        george@imagist.com
voice                              262 241 9375 
fax                                262 241 9398 
                      Lotter Moser & Associates
10050 N Port Washington Rd  -  Mequon, WI 53092 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html