Re: How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is t...
I have had the Leica R 28/2.8 vII , 35/2, 50/2, 60/2.8, 90/2, 90/2.8 and 35-70/4. All are great lenses. My 2 favorites are 35/2 and 90/2.8 for their great overall package - size, round built-in hood, bokeh, cost, etc. They are not the sharpest of lens but the drawing style is very artisitc and unique. I have not seen that in other lenses. They are special. But the high cost of ownership is very hard to swallow.
On the Zeiss, I have better experiences with the Contax N. N17-35 is one hell of a lens. Of course I have not tried any of the Zeiss Z series which all looked wonderful. I really like Zeiss for landscapes.
I do think the Olympus OM 16/3.5 fisheye is very good. And the OM 24/2.8 is highly regarded. Not to forget the 35-80/2.8 ED and the 100/2 ED. And the OM 80 macro witha combination of bellow and closed up lens is probably the smallest 2:1 macro lens.
There is something in every brand that stands out. So it\'s not just Zeiss that is on everyone\'s lips.
Re: How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is t...
I have had the Leica R 28/2.8 vII , 35/2, 50/2, 90/2, 90/2.8 and 35-70/4. All are great lenses. My 2 favorites are 35/2 and 90/2.8 for their great overall package - size, round built-in hood, bokeh, cost, etc. They are not the sharpest of lens but the drawing style is very artisitc and unique. I have not seen that in other lenses. They are special. But the high cost of ownership is very hard to swallow.
On the Zeiss, I have better experiences with the Contax N. N17-35 is one hell of a lens. Of course I have not tried any of the Zeiss Z series which all looked wonderful. I really like Zeiss for landscapes.
I do think the Olympus OM 16/3.5 fisheye is very good. And the OM 24/2.8 is highly regarded. Not to forget the 35-80/2.8 ED and the 100/2 ED. And the OM 80 macro witha combination of bellow and closed up lens is probably the smallest 2:1 macro lens.
There is something in every brand that stands out. So it\'s not just Zeiss that is on everyone\'s lips.
Re: How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is t...
I have had the Leica R 28/2.8 vII , 35/2, 50/2, 90/2, 90/2.8 and 35-70/4. All are great lenses. My 2 favorites are 35/2 and 90/2.8 for their great overall package - size, round built-in hood, bokeh, cost, etc. They are not the sharpest of lens but the drawing style is very artisitc and unique. I have not seen that in other lenses. They are special. But the high cost of ownership is very hard to swallow.
On the Zeiss, I have better experiences with the Contax N. N17-35 is one hell of a lens. Of course I have not tried any of the Zeiss Z series which all looked wonderful. I really like Zeiss for landscapes.
I do think the Olympus OM 16/3.5 fisheye is very good. And the OM 24/2.8 is highly regarded. Not to forget the 35-80/2.8 ED and the 100/2 ED.
There is something in every brand that stands out. So it\'s not just Zeiss that is on everyone\'s lips.
Nov 04, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Previous versions of ManWearPants's message #9005283 « How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses? »
