Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I thought the 24 Elmarit R was quite good, my copy was very sharp and well made. I also liked the 80 - 200 f4, and found it to be a super performer. It is one of 2 that I still have, the other is the 90 f2.8 Elmarit R, which I found to be my favorite lens. I have kept the 80-200 & 90 when I sold off my R gear a few months ago, and was planning on converting them to mount on my Nikon D4. The SL is making me re-think this, although it is way to expensive for me right now. Gene On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> wrote: > Mistype - 75-200 f4.5 - an average performer, nowhere near the Nikon > 80-200 of that era. > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > > > >>>> > > a 24mm Elmarit-R and a 75-210mm zoom - neither of which I liked very > much. > > <<< > > > > 75-200mm or 70-210mm? These are both Minolta designs, the latter with > some Leitz input. The 75-200 (the older of these two) didn't impress me. > The sharpness was OK and it has good flare control but bokeh could get > really funky, distortion was clearly evident and its mechanical > construction was not up to Leica standards. The 80-200mm f/4 (A Leica > design made by Kyocera) is a much better lens. > > > > Doug Herr > > Birdman of Sacramento > > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > http://doug-herr.fineartamerica.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >