Re[2]: Contax G vs. Leica M

[Rick_Floyd@leco.com]

     I'm not sure that the adapter mentioned will work with G lenses unless 
     the cost is due to allowing a means of focusing.  Remember that the G 
     lenses don't have conventional focusing rings like all manual focus 
     lenses.
     
     Best Regards,
     Rick Floyd

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Contax G vs. Leica M
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internet
Date:    7/31/97 10:49 AM


> Modern
>Zeiss glass will cost and cost and cost, though the G2's 16mm Hologon seems 
>to be appearing on quite a few M's.
     
Granted, $400 is a bit steep for the adaptor, but you are mistaken about 
the price of most Zeiss lenses for the G camears.  The 16 f/8 Hologon is 
the most expensive, but the 21 f/2.8 Biogon is only $1200 from B&H... less 
than my new 35mm Summicron, and half the price of the comparable Leica 
lenses.  The other G lenses, are in my opinion, complete steals, after 
having used them for several months.  The 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar is only $520, 
yet was called the best medium tele they'd every tested when Popular 
Photography put it and the 45 and 28 lenses through their paces (April 
1995).  The 45mm f/2 Planar is only $340, and the 35mm f/2 is only $470.  
If you go with Zeiss lenses, even if you pay $400 for the viewfinder, you 
will still be payiing a lot less than Leica glass and getting quite 
similar quality. 
     
Having used both glasses, though, it seems that M glass like my 35 
Summicron has a slightly warmer tone than the 35 or 90 G glass.  All 
three lenses produce noticably better contrast and sharpness when 
compared with other photos.