Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2011/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] New Leica M Stuff
From: tgray at 125px.com (Tim Gray)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:28:15 -0400
References: <78360B7C-76FD-4E7A-A744-C1F95F887902@charter.net> <CA26873F.1095D%mark@rabinergroup.com> <20110622030649.GA63482@selenium.125px.com> <BANLkTikB+aa3cQM49hjJQppmFubQmW29zQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Jun 22, 2011 at 01:31 PM +0930, Marty Deveney wrote:
>It doesn't work on the M9. The rear element is too close for the
>microlenses to correct the angle of transmission at the edges.
Yup. Good thing I'm on film still. Of course if I needed a 21 on the
M9, I guess I'd look at the Zeiss 21/2.8. Again, that extra $2k for the
Leica lens when it's about the same size as the 2.8 and has about the
same distortion just doesn't seem worth it for me. I was really hoping
it would either be smaller or have less distortion for the price.
Replies:
Reply from msadat at gmail.com (mehrdad) ([Leica] New Leica M Stuff)
In reply to:
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] New Leica M Stuff)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] New Leica M Stuff)
Message from tgray at 125px.com (Tim Gray) ([Leica] New Leica M Stuff)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] New Leica M Stuff)