At 04:39 PM 1/6/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Denton taylor wrote:
>
>>Yes Leica lenses are ridiculous but Contax, when compared to the fast
>>Oly lenses, _can_ be reasonable.
>
>I don't have any personal experiences from either Leica or Zeiss/Contax and
>I certainly don't wanna start a war here, but when scanning through all
>tests made here in Sweden by magazine FOTO the Leica's almost always have
>come on top, something that rarely can be said for the Zeiss's. In fact, for
>certain lenses (300/4), results have been downright disappointing. Although
>fitted with the heftiest of price-tags (almost twice as expensive as Nikon's
>300/4 AF) it was the among the worst of the lot, even the Sigma's and
>Tokinas fared better.
>
>These tests also show that Nikon indeed have some dogs, and that the best
>lens maker today by far seems to be Canon, especially BIG (200m and up)
>lenses (although often cheaper than Nikon). The 200/1.8 and 300/2.8 crushes
>all competition, except from Leica.
>
>Just reading....
>
Thanks Ulf for posting this.
I realized that long teles work best with autofocus (as opposed to the rest
of my needs) so never got the Zeiss 300. Instead, for the same price, I
keep a N90s and the same 300/4 AF :-) . In fact, I recently used this combo
to take a bunch of photos at the NYC Marathon, which can be viewed at
http://www.dentontaylor.com/galleryj.htm
Regards,
Denton Taylor
_______________________________
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com
Panoramic and 360deg Immersive Images at
www.threehundredsixty.com
< 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 >
|