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: hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)
Date: Mon Nov 5 15:58:40 2007
References: <C353DCF4.739E3%mark@rabinergroup.com><519DD479-52C0-4301-9E8E-931B283E296F@comcast.net><p0623090ac3547167b5d5@[10.1.16.153]> <910413C6-13D7-493F-BDBC-B30D2C297648@comcast.net>
 
Just UWATE, you'll convince us eventually.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org 
[mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Tom Schofield
Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2007 01:51
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison

That's UWATE, Henning!  I'm on a crusade.  28mm is till wide & 16mm  
is Ultra-Wide!

Tom


On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:11 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:

> Sorry; I just looked at the WATE distortion curves again;

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Message from tomschofield at comcast.net (Tom Schofield) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)