>The reason to be interested in a Leica is if you want something to do
>types of photography for which a rangefinder is superior to an SLR,
>and want interchangeable lenses.
I'm not even sure that's enough to make me want the Leica. I used a Hexar
for years -- sold it when I invested in OM stuff -- and if I were to
return to rangefinder equipment, I would look seriously at the Contax G2
system.
Optically, the Contax outpeforms the Leica at virtually every focal length
(with the possible exception of the wildly expensive 100mm macro from
Leitz).
Olympus seems to offer a lens at every focal length that holds its own,
however. The 50/2, as discussed; the world-class 90/2; and various wide
angles. Some here seem to have doubts about the Zuiko 24/2.8, but I've
had fine results with it (and every test I've read suggests that it
outperforms, for instance, the Zeiss 25mm for the Contax SLRs). Photo
Techniques compared the Zuiko 21/3.5 favorably with the G Biogon. I find
this hard to believe -- haven't had the chance to use this Zuiko -- but
that's *extremely* high praise.
I'm becoming an OM partisan. Recently gave Shutterbug's Bob Shell a hard
time for a usenet post in which he suggested that Zuikos routinely
underperform lenses from N*k*n, C*n*n, P*nt*x, and M*n*lt*. (This based
on private tests done by some unnamed lens manufacturer.) Strikes me as
patently false.
Doug Cooper
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|