[rollei_list] Re: FM2 meets my needs was Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica)
- From: "Douglas Shea" <dshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:12:57 -0600
I would not categorically embrace or dismiss any lens manufacturer,
including the venerable Zeiss. Nikon has had its share of success; try
finding a 300/2 Nikkor that hasn't been snatched up by a cinematographer.
They're not having them converted for use in their business because they are
cheap and plentiful. I still use a 58/1.2 NOCT on my Alpas and under the
conditions the lens was designed for I've found nothing that compares. Same
with the 16/3.5 Fisheye, and more than a few other exceptional Nikkor
lenses. Which does not take anything away from Zeiss or Canon, but I for one
do believe Nikon has made some extremely fine lenses.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:41 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: FM2 meets my needs was Not My Definition of a
Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica)
I never did get this whole thing about Nikon lenses.
They're OK, but frankly they're nothing special at all
in my experience. Far better to use Contax and Zeiss
lenses, or even Canon.
Nick
Other related posts:
