Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All I can say is it looks not like a 24 2.8 on a camera but a 35 ASPH 1.4 or 2. In other words one full size down. The weight difference does not seem like much but 55 vs. 46 that's the difference between the 90 APO ASPH Summicron and the 90 Elmarit. A bigger difference here as a 24. As its less long. And if the world economy crashes tomorrow its not going to amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. mark@rabinergroup.com Mark William Rabiner > From: <red735i@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:14:54 -0700 (GMT-07:00) > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: [Leica] Quick Comparison: 24 F2.8 ASPH vs F3.8 ASPH > > This is a physical specs comparison... > > Weight: > F2.8= 290gm F3.8 = 240gm > Filter Size: > F2.8= E55 F3.8 = E46 > Length: > F2.8 = 45mm F3.8= 40.6mm > > The F3.8 has a screw on hood, the F2.8 is a bayonet. > > Conclusion... the F3.8 is a bit smaller ( smaller diameter body) , lighter > ( > by 50gm), shorter ( by 5 mm or 1/5 of an inch) , and slower by 2/3 of a > stop. > > Puts seems inconclusive or not definite in his concllusions about he > relative > image quality. > > Not so sure I would swap one for the other....at least it is not clear yet > what advantage I would get..... > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information