250/350

Has anyone any experience with either the

350 or 250 R lenses?

Thanks.

<p>I have not but from what I have read and heard they are excellent lenses. If you get one or both please do not convert them to Nikon or some mount. Wait for the Leica M. You can use them at full frame with an R to M converter.</p>

<p>I had a 250 R Version 1 in the 3 cam configuration for about 6 months, but found I didn't use it as often as I had anticipated. It is a great lens with smooth handling and sharpness/contrast. Many serious users switched to the 280 after the APO came out, but it is quite expensive. I never used the 350, but I understand from some users that it is highly flare resistant.</p>

Switch to an M? I have M set up too.

Full frame? 35mm is fine. Back to the

lenses- are they ready available used?

<p>I just checked the big auction site...lots of both available.</p>

<p>I mean <em><strong>The</strong></em> Leica M. The new one. The one with the Live View Viewfinder. But if you are happy with your R's and film, great. </p>

Not interested in the digital stuff. Only

the 250/350.

Thank you

<p>Go for it alan.</p>

<p>Alan<br>

I have on my computer a PDF file of a lens test archive compiled by Photozone, which summarizes historical Leica lens reviews from Color Photo magazine, Popular Photography, and Chasseur d'Images. The PDF does not seem to exist on their site now. I am not sure if it will be acceptable to post a screenshot of the relevant page here. However, there is a Chasseur d'Image review summary for both these lenses. Each review has 3 scores: Optical Quality; Value for Money; Cote d'amour (emotional effect?). Both these lenses score 3,3,1, out of 5 in each case. For comparison, 180 f2 APO scores 4,3,4, 180 f3.4 APO scores 5,3,2, 280 f2.8 scores 5,3,2.</p>

<p>I have not used any of these lenses but have found these reviews consistent with my experience with my small R system, and also with a couple of M lenses I have used. From this I'd guess that the 250 and 350 are decent lenses but not among Leica's best.</p>

<p>Recently, a lot of new Leica R reviews are appearing, mostly regarding digital conversion eg for m4/3. My limited experience (with 35 f2.8 R) is that some lenses work better with film than digital sensors. Maybe this is more true for wide angles. Therefore if you plan film use I would take these new digital reviews with caution.</p>

<p>Alan, I have the 350/4.8 and have used it extensively on my SL2. I picked up a nice used one about 8 years ago when facing a new photographic challenge (3- and 4-week trips to Antarctica). It's a bit large but handles very nicely on a monopod, and I loved the results. Doug Herr, a serious wildlife photographer who at least used to post here occasionally, likes and uses the 250/4. My other long lens, the 80-200/4, is hard to find in 3-cam form but also excellent and a good value. I have the impression that the people who pass up these lenses for the much more expensive APOs must regularly be doing something very technically challenging, like photographing small brightly backlit birds on a branch. (Much the same is true in the binocular world, where fluorite really won't matter much to most people. This is why I'm glad to see Leica finally come out with a new Trinovid 10x42 again.)</p>

Thanks Eric. I totally agree- too many

people these days are splitting hairs

with lens performance but happy with

mediocre composition!

Oh- I have the original 10x42. Great!

All I'll ever need.

Thanks again for your input.