thomas t

Stephen:

 

I can't see the entire frame as well, but for 40mm purposes I have not found it to be too troublesome. For 35mm, it might be, I don't know. It is a bit more tedious to be sure. But I'm not willing to try LASIK yet, so I'm out of luck regarding sticking to glasses :-) Regarding new account, I seem to get an inordinate number of SPAM emails lately and I suspect it might be from the old account. hope that helps. regards

Oscar:

 

The field of coverage for the cv 40 is well approximated by using the M3's entire viewfinder. I have not experienced any unwanted subjects in my photos from using the entire viewfinder so far. If I am particularly critical about the shot, I will take an extra second to scan around the edges. But I have not found that necessary in the vast majority of shots. Regards

On lenses:

 

Based on the comparable MTFs and the price ? Zeiss

 

On camera:

 

Cloth shutters will always command a premium for some photographers versus relatively noisier metal shutters

My guess is top Nokton, bottom Leica. And genuinely no offense to "bokeh" enthusiasts, but all it shows is that, all things being equal, one lens seems to be sharper than the other wide open (assuming Mike's concern about plane of focus is not at work here). this is already verified by the same subject photos from this test:

 

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/12/03/466.html

 

More importantly, how often do we really worry about the "bokeh" of HCB or Harvey, McCurry or Nachtwey's work? ;-) 2 of whom don't even use Leicas, and one used the Contax sonnar 1.5 for much of his body of work . They sure don't (didn't) miss the leica glow. regards

The CV 40 is fast, compact, sharp, and handles very nice ergonomically. I think it would be a fine choice with any of the M cameras and should be just fine with a CL. regards

Yvan,

 

For landscape, speed is not as critical, tripod use is. The 50 macro is sharp from 2.5 wide open and will give you the sharpest results. It is a great lens, one of the gems of the canon lineup. regards

Luis:

 

I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure James Nachtwey used the 17-35 2.8L in War Photographer. And his work is certainly nothing to scoff at. I've seen prints of his work on Kosovo, and they are pretty impressive. I think if Nachtwey can stomach using the 17-35, we all can ;-) regards

I have done the same thing with my lens by accident, no damage resulted. I don't make a habit of it though.

The 17-40 L is a great lens, sharp throughout its range. On the question of speed, how often do you shoot at 2.8? For travel, I suspect you will be able to get by with f/4 for most of your shots. For those low-light situations, use your 50 f/1.8. I also shoot with a Voigtlander 21mm f/4 (leica mount) during travel, and I have not felt the loss of that one stop. good luck

I can't speak to the Tamron or Sigma, but I can assure you that the 17-40 L is a great lens, relatively light, well built, sharp sharp sharp. If you can wait and save some funds, I would highly encourage you to get the 17-40 L. You wont' regret it. regards

28mm, those white sands scream for a 28 ... have fun Paul.

Steffen: sorry to hear about your nightmare situation. I'm glad you let the prospective interested buyers on this forum know about it. Enough to scare me away. good luck

It is an instant classic :-)