Will my old lenses work on Nikon F6?

From: (Uranium Committee)

About 30 years ago I did a test of the Nikkor 50mm f/1,4 vs the 50mm
Summilux-R (f/1,4) for the Leicaflex. The Leitz lens was $441 at the
time. The Nikkor was probably $175. I used a single roll of
Panatomic-X and switched it between two bodies. The cameras were
mounted on a sturdy tripd and focused carefully. The test target was
the Paterson lens test chart. I made 8x10 inch prints using the same
contrast of paper. The Leitz lens had better overall contrast and less
astigmatism. It was easily observable on the 8x10's. I sold tons of
Leica stuff using that test.

And now, scenes from next week's episode of "That 70's Show."

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:00:34 +0000, William Graham wrote:

No matter what some man can make, some other man can improve on, and charge
more for. But there is a place on the cost-benefit curve that is optimum,
and to go very much further out on that curve is to basically just be
wasting your money. If you are doing very specialized work, where extreme
sharpness at the edges of your prints is very important, then it might be
wise to pay 2 to 5 times as much money for all your lenses. but the fact is,
most people can't tell the difference between pictures taken with an $800
Leica 50 mm lens, and a $100 Nikkor 50 mm lens that is just as fast. Even if
they inspect the photos with a magnifying glass. So why would one want to
spend all that extra money for a Leica lens set? We are talking many
thousands of dollars here. The 800 dollar lens is probably the only lens
Leica sells that is under 1000 dollars. Both of their top of the line pro
camera bodies are about the same price ($2000, or so) But you can easily go
broke buying Leica glass, and, for what?

I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

From: DALLAS


I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

I'd say you got the "retention" part right.

From: DALLAS


I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

I'd say you got the "retention" part right.

"DALLAS" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:00:34 +0000, William Graham wrote:

No matter what some man can make, some other man can improve on, and
charge
more for. But there is a place on the cost-benefit curve that is optimum,
and to go very much further out on that curve is to basically just be
wasting your money. If you are doing very specialized work, where extreme
sharpness at the edges of your prints is very important, then it might be
wise to pay 2 to 5 times as much money for all your lenses. but the fact
is,
most people can't tell the difference between pictures taken with an $800
Leica 50 mm lens, and a $100 Nikkor 50 mm lens that is just as fast. Even
if
they inspect the photos with a magnifying glass. So why would one want to
spend all that extra money for a Leica lens set? We are talking many
thousands of dollars here. The 800 dollar lens is probably the only lens
Leica sells that is under 1000 dollars. Both of their top of the line pro
camera bodies are about the same price ($2000, or so) But you can easily
go
broke buying Leica glass, and, for what?

I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

Well, about two years ago I bought an R3 with a 50 mm f/2.0 summicron lens
attached in pristine condition for $500. I use it occasionally, and It works
well, but I really can't tell the difference between the pictures I take
with it and the ones I take with my Nikon/Nikkor 50 mm combination. It is a
good back-up camera, and I tend to carry it with me when I am driving places
just so I'll have something in an emergency situation. I doubt if I'll ever
buy any other Leica lenses for it, unless I fall into a good deal sometime
in the future.......

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:59:14 +0000, William Graham wrote:

I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

Well, about two years ago I bought an R3 with a 50 mm f/2.0 summicron lens
attached in pristine condition for $500. I use it occasionally, and It works
well, but I really can't tell the difference between the pictures I take
with it and the ones I take with my Nikon/Nikkor 50 mm combination. It is a
good back-up camera, and I tend to carry it with me when I am driving places
just so I'll have something in an emergency situation. I doubt if I'll ever
buy any other Leica lenses for it, unless I fall into a good deal sometime
in the future.......

I am contemplating selling my F2 and Canon F-1N and a few other things to
get the two Leica lenses (50mm & 90mm) I saw when I had my stuff valued a
few days ago. It's not that the Leica is going to take better photographs,
it's just that it will still be worth something to someone if I ever
decide to sell it.

"DALLAS" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:59:14 +0000, William Graham wrote:

I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

Well, about two years ago I bought an R3 with a 50 mm f/2.0 summicron
lens
attached in pristine condition for $500. I use it occasionally, and It
works
well, but I really can't tell the difference between the pictures I take
with it and the ones I take with my Nikon/Nikkor 50 mm combination. It is
a
good back-up camera, and I tend to carry it with me when I am driving
places
just so I'll have something in an emergency situation. I doubt if I'll
ever
buy any other Leica lenses for it, unless I fall into a good deal
sometime
in the future.......

I am contemplating selling my F2 and Canon F-1N and a few other things to
get the two Leica lenses (50mm & 90mm) I saw when I had my stuff valued a
few days ago. It's not that the Leica is going to take better photographs,
it's just that it will still be worth something to someone if I ever
decide to sell it.

In general, that is the best reason there is for buying quality....The fact
that it holds its value so well. If you subtract the resale value from the
initial cost, and divide by the number of months you have and use the item,
you will sometimes find out that it is cheaper to use the quality item than
it would have been to own and use a cheaper one. If true, then you are wise
to go with the quality.

"DALLAS" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:59:14 +0000, William Graham wrote:

I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
value.

Well, about two years ago I bought an R3 with a 50 mm f/2.0 summicron
lens
attached in pristine condition for $500. I use it occasionally, and It
works
well, but I really can't tell the difference between the pictures I take
with it and the ones I take with my Nikon/Nikkor 50 mm combination. It is
a
good back-up camera, and I tend to carry it with me when I am driving
places
just so I'll have something in an emergency situation. I doubt if I'll
ever
buy any other Leica lenses for it, unless I fall into a good deal
sometime
in the future.......

I am contemplating selling my F2 and Canon F-1N and a few other things to
get the two Leica lenses (50mm & 90mm) I saw when I had my stuff valued a
few days ago. It's not that the Leica is going to take better photographs,
it's just that it will still be worth something to someone if I ever
decide to sell it.

In general, that is the best reason there is for buying quality....The fact
that it holds its value so well. If you subtract the resale value from the
initial cost, and divide by the number of months you have and use the item,
you will sometimes find out that it is cheaper to use the quality item than
it would have been to own and use a cheaper one. If true, then you are wise
to go with the quality.