Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi again. Prelude: ''Yet another very though question appears here before the wise Leicaists of this Leica list. But exhausted by the relentless onslaught of Digitalia, one can wonder if they will be able to yield the swift blades through which they focus the knowledge of the Knights of Leitz.'' Question: I'm presently thinking that anything wider than 35mm on a .72 M is uncomfortable to use. (And I don't want a wider viewfinder M). Experience with my 28 has proven the framing is very tight; I almost have to press my eyeball well into the eyepiece (painful after 20 to 30 minutes, I say), and I still sometimes get my shadow or some other useless and unnoticed detail in the frame. This 28 stuff is workable for static subjects or during rare tripod use where I can take my time. But for live action, it's difficult... And I'm not mentioning the sixth of the frame that's always hidden by the hood. Yes, life is though. So I've been loving up my 35, and that's fine, but... I need wider views sometimes. I'm thinking I've got three options: Plan A) Nikon F2 and a good old Nikkor super-wide Plan B) Leica R, (100% framing?) and an R lens in the 18 to 24 range Plan C) 21mm ASPH-M with viewfinder I think I'd prefer the 21m option, but... is the 'viewfinder on the shoe' totally accurate? I mean pretty much dead on? It would have to be. Are the Leica R super-wides as good as the Leica Ms lenses, or would some Nikkors be good enough for 16x20s to my extremely difficult, Leica-loving eye? (Yes, I only have one Leica-loving eye, the other one is non-committal). Your thoughts, O! Wise Ones, are awaited. Draped in unpixelized reverence, I thank you in advance. Luc - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html