Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/05

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

Subject: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Mon Nov 5 12:55:35 2007

It strikes me that what its adding up to here is if distortion is a critical
issue get a slower lens and a non zoom or non variable focal length lens.


Spending big money doest always cut it became its usually tied in to a
faster focal length; creating more problems then they solve.

No ones weighed in on how the 14mm 2.8D ED Nikkor is supposed to stand up
which i've been using. I'm going to check again right now but so far I've
not found a nay sayers in cyberspace.

All a third party lens manufacturer has to do, like Cosina for instance is
come out with glass for our rangefinder system which is slow. And f4 or
close. Someone whose done rangefinder for more than five minutes knows that
speed is not such a big deal if you're not looking through the little lens.
You can see and focus just as easy with a tiny slow lens; unworkable on an
SLR. 
I wish the Leica marketing people knew this.
F 2.5 is nowhere vile.

But tiny well corrected unobtrusive small air to glass cheap glass I can
sink my teeth into.




Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com



Replies: Reply from jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Reply from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
In reply to: Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)