joseph_barbano

The P-150 is a good deal at about $240 even with the Hektor lens.

There was a noticeable improvement in quality over my old Kodak

carousel system. The biggest drawback is the tray system which does

not prevent spillage. You have to be pretty careful with the

straight trays regardles of the type; i.e.LKM, etc.

If you get an R8, buy it new with the Leica USA warranty; do not buy

it used; no exceptions. Pay the extra $$$ for a new one. R7's are

good cameras, but are overpriced when used and in mint shape; about

$1100? I've had the R7 and R8 and the R8 is just more comfortable

and better viewfinder. R8's grow on you. R7's are nice but can be

more diffcult to hold than an R8 when using telephoto lenses. If you

have the bucks, spring for the new R8. My experience has been with

R3,4s,7,and 8 is that all R bodies have about the same reliability.

Watch your stuff when you lay your 803 on its side even with the

clasp secured. I was at a night time wedding and my 50 Summicron

somehow was able to fit through the space between the lid and body of

the bag with the clasp secured. You have to watch those small

lenses. Fortunately the lens was found and returned to me the next

day. After that I kept the lenses in Zing bags inside of the 803.

Her's some first hand experience regarding your question.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied

with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens

was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I

purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and

louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the

180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica

technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75-

200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was

when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the

well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses

this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it

was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200

zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times

better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most

people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the

most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd

recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

I've owned Leica M-6 and various Rs R3,4s,7, and 8) for over 15

years, including both fixed focal length and zoom lenses in 35-70mm

and 75-200mm. Leica zooms will exceed your expectations, I'm sure.

They will perform nearly as well as the fixed focal length lenses in

most situations. They aren't as fast, but they're much more

versatile especially when traveling.

I've owned the 35-70 E60 lens for fifteen years. It's a good lens,

versatile, durable, etc. Color and contrast are good, and absolutely

no flare. It works well wide open. It's been a workhorse lens.

Incidentally, about 5 years ago, I compared it against the Nikon 35-

70/2.8. The E60 was impressively better. The biggest drawback of

this lens, is that its closest focusing distance is about 1 meter.

The E67 lens has the identical OPTICAL design except that the front

element does not rotate. I've read some threads, about flare on this

lens as well, but have no personal experience. I believe it's way

overpriced because it's made in Germany. Optical performance should

be identical.

I've considered upgrading to the new f4 lens, primarily due to the

closer focusing distance(which is about 1 foot, I think?). At 3-4

times the price of the E60 lens, I would not expect significantly

better performance from the F4 lens in spite of what you might read.

I'll probably buy the F4 once my E60 dies, because I like zooms, even

though fixed focal lenghts are slightly better. However, if I could

get the E60 for $300, I'd buy it. If you can buy it for $300, buy

it. You'll be happy with the lens.

As backjground, I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was

satisfied with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that

the lens was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago,

I purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and

louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the

180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica

technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75-

200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was

when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the

well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses

this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it

was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200

zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times

better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most

people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the

most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd

recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

<p>

regarding your request, in my photo.net portfolio, the "bullfight"

folder was taken with the zoom using ASA 800 film while traveling in

Spain. In the "single photo folder", the pictue of the guy praying,

the women's face with pink head ware, and the girl smelling the

flower were also taken with the lens. The "girl with flower" was KL

200, with some camera movement. The other were Provia 400F. Good

luck.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with

the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a

Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a

late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against

the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a

year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I

discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was

impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the

same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and

respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At

that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer

useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a

better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even

though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not

see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and,

generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing

the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

In my portfolio, the "bullfight" folder was taken with the zoom using

ASA 800 film while traveling in Spain. In the "single photo folder",

the pictue of the guy praying, the women's face with pink head ware,

and the girl smelling the flower were also taken with the lens.

The "girl with flower" was KL 200, with some camera movement. The

other were Provia 400F. Good luck.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with

the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a

Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a

late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against

the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a

year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I

discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was

impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the

same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and

respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At

that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer

useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a

better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even

though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not

see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and,

generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing

the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with

the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a

Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a

late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against

the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a

year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I

discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was

impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the

same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and

respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At

that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer

useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a

better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even

though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not

see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and,

generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing

the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with

the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a

Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a

late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against

the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About

a year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I

discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was

impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the

same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and

respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At

that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer

useable or fixable.

Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a better lens, but I also

suppose that it isn't 4 times better even though it costs 4 times as

much the older zoom. Most people will not see or appreciate the

differences except under the most extreme and, generally impractical,

enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you

can get one affordably.

I've been using Leica R for about 17 years in combination with zooms

and fixed focal length lenses. The zooms, dollar for dollar, are a

good entree, and the quality will exceed your expectations. Leica

purists (whomever and whatever they are) might disagree; many whom

have no first-hand experience with Leica zooms. You will still get

those "knock your socks off" results with zooms as well as the

versatility over fixed focal length lenses.

Give your friend a new Leica M-6 with a 50mm f/2 Summicron lens. I'd

recommend black chrome for it's durability. It's a camera that your

friend will keep and enjoy his/her entire life. This camera/lens

combination is timeless, and it will also retains its value. It

truly epitomizes quality and usability.

<p>

Stay away from used equpiment unless your friend is extremely

familiar with Leicas. The new equipment warranty, called PASSPORT,

comes in handy since it covers any damage to the equipment for 3

years.

<p>

Current prices are about $1995 for the M-6 (minus $150 rebate,

currently underway) and about $995 for the lens (rebate applies here

as well). Buy from a retailer that specializes in Leica. They're

more knowledgeable and compeitive on prices. I recommend Tamarkin in

New York, Don Chatterton in Seattle, Jim Kuehl is Iowa, or Sam Shohan

at Classic Connections in New York. You can find more specifics in

Shutterbug magazine.

<p>

Good luck.