Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.

A friend of mine had a 50mm f1.8, which, from the small prints she got,
seemed extremely good, in terms of colour and contrast etc... So wondered
about the other lenses. Many thanks for the info that the quality is less
uniform than Pentax.

Pentax lenses are more uniformly good. The first series of bayonet
mount manual lenses, commonly known as K lenses, included some real
gems. The second series, the M series, were intended to compete
directly with Zuikos for the OM and were optimised for size rather
than optical performance. However, the M series still included some
good performers. The third series, the A series, was consistently
good and included some outstanding performers, while maintaining
compact design. The A series zooms were not as good as the fixed
focal length lenses, but you can still choose from several good
performers.

I have a 35-70mm SMC-A f3.5-4.5, which I've found to have excellent
colour, contrast and resolution. I recently enlarged a photo taken at f8
at night on fuji sensia 100 (or was it reala?) to 30x20", and the level of
detail was astonishing (good, that is). Currently, being a poor student,
this is the only lens I have, though I am looking to a 50mm f1.7/f1.4 for
my next acquisition.

If the above is confusing, I apologise. It simply isn't possible to
say which range (Zuiko/Pentax) is better than the other, because it
depends which lenses you choose from within each range. However,
having used both Olympus OM and Pentax over the years, I would always
choose Pentax glass.

Not confusing at all. Pentax has more consistent optical quality over the
range than the OM lenses - I didn't know that.

Well I didn't know that either, Duncan, and I still don't. You are basing a
lot on the opinion of a single poster. If you cast your net wide enough you
may find some equally vociferous proponents of Zuiko lenses. It's a toss up.
The only thing is to start playing with different cameras and lenses when
you have the chance, and decide for yourself.

That's because most Pentax lenses have a particular "look", with a
pleasant, soft rendition of out of focus areas of the shot, which most
Zuikos simply don't offer. That "look", sometimes called "bokeh", is
also fairly consistent across the range.

[Ironically, I now use Olympus digital equipment and the Digital Zuiko
lenses have that same "look". ;-) ]

The SMC anti-reflection coating is also significantly better than
anything Olympus offered in the OM system until the late MC series.
You can use SMC Pentax lenses in situations where other brands would
suffer from flare.

Good point - I like shots into light, so this could be a potential
problem.


Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

Ha ha! Logarithmically totally out of my price range! But I've heard
that they are something special. (the 43mm lens looks very nice...)

24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

A goldmine of information... many thanks. Although do you really think
the 50mm f2.0 is any good? It's just that I've actually got one, and
havn't used it since I got disappointing results from a trip to South
Africa. I think it had the resolution, but the colour was a bit bland and
non-contrasty. However, there are loads of other factors, like it being
in rubbish condition, having no UV filter, and I can't remember the
processing. I'm eyeing the 24mm and 28mm....

I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

Beware different versions of the lenses listed above, such as the 28mm
f/2.8 M, which is a poor performer. The A version is a very different
optic, with a different optical formulation and much better
anti-reflection coating.

I use Leica M equipment and some of the Pentax lenses come
surprisingly close to Leica glass in terms of optical performance.
The 35mm f/2 K and A may have different optical formulations, but both
are outstanding performers, as are the later autofocus versions. They
aren't as good as the classic Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron (any version)
but they do come close by having excellent sharpness and surprisingly
good rendition of out of focus areas of the shot ("bokeh"). This
combination of sharpness and bokeh is difficult to find in Zuiko
lenses for the OM system.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

Good point. Looks like I'm tending towards Pentax here.

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

Hmmm... The LX sounds a great camera, apart from this sticky mirror
problem. If I were to spend 200+ on an LX and then another 100 for
servicing I think I'd be a touch disapointed. But if it last 15 years,
then I suppose it might be worth it.

As for spot metering, I accept that the OM4 has the superb, multiple
award-winning Spot Program system of averaging a number of spot meter
readings. However, despite owning many cameras over the years that
offered spot metering, I always use a hand held meter, so I have never
missed spot metering on the LX. The LX meter is centre-weighted, and
once you gain experience with it, it is superbly accurate and (above
all) consistent tool.

Isn't a hand held meter big, clunky, expensive and awkard to use?

If you do buy an OM4, do make sure you put sufficient time and effort
into locating the best Zuiko lenses for it. In my opinion, you would
find it far easier to build a Pentax outfit, because there are a
greater selection of excellent performers and they are far more easily
available.

Do you anything about the 50mm f1.8? I think that would be what I'd start
with if I were to go for an OM4 in the future.

There are other cameras you might consider, such as the Nikon FM3A or
one of the higher-specified Minoltas, such as the X-700. Minolta
glass is a little like Pentax glass; a reasonably wide range of good
performers with pleasant bokeh. The bodies are good - nothing
special, though they contributed components to the Leica R series.

I currently have a Pentax Super-A, and the X-700 doesn't look too
dissimilar. I don't have any problems with the Super-A, apart from it
would be nice to have a camera that feels more solid and with 100%
viewfinder coverage (or near there).


The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

Yes, the FM3A seems a very nice camera, at a reasonable price. However, I
was surprised to find it didn't have a 100% viewfinder (I thought most top
Nikon's did). And what you say about he glass is very enticing...
Particularly as they are Nikon lenses.


However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

That is surprising.


But if you want sharpness and don't care about bokeh, there are many
very sharp Nikkors including the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8,
and the FM3A is probably the best manual focus body Nikon ever made.
Buying new means that you get a full warranty and guaranteed spares
availability for at least 10 years.

Again, another good point, for consideration.


Choices, choices ...

I would probably choose the FM3A or OM4Ti - and Pentax lenses!

;-)

Ah. That could be tricky! Do you know of any manual cameras with 100% or
near to that viewfinder coverage. My Super-A has 92%, which can be
slightly annoying. The LX has an excellent 98%, FM3a 93%, Olympus OM4
97%, X-700 92%.

Duncan.

"Norm Fleming" wrote:

Well I didn't know that either, Duncan, and I still don't. You are basing a
lot on the opinion of a single poster

.... a single poster, yes, but one who has extensively used both
systems being discussed, and who has no particular brand loyalty.

There is no shortage of opinionated people on Usenet and the Web who
have used just one system, or another, and probably only one or two
consumer-grade lenses at that. If you prefer to accept their biased
opinions, that is your choice.

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.

A friend of mine had a 50mm f1.8, which, from the small prints she got,
seemed extremely good, in terms of colour and contrast etc... So wondered
about the other lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest lens in the Olympus OM system, and its
performance bears comparison with the best 50mm f/1.7-f/1.8 lenses
from other manufacturers. It was an immensely popular lens. Just try
to find one without fungus and cleaning marks!

I have a 35-70mm SMC-A f3.5-4.5, which I've found to have excellent colour,
contrast and resolution. I recently enlarged a photo taken at f8 at night
on fuji sensia 100 (or was it reala?) to 30x20", and the level of detail was
astonishing (good, that is). Currently, being a poor student, this is the
only lens I have, though I am looking to a 50mm f1.7/f1.4 for my next
acquisition.

The 35-70mm A is a great performer. I have one that came with an MX
body I bought as a spare. By today's standards, the zoom range is
limited, but it is optically very good. Nikon made a comparable
35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AIS, which was one of my favourite Nikkors.
Unfortunately Nikon allowed Cosina to use the Nikkor branding on a
cheap 35-70mm f/3.5-4.8 for the Nikon FE10/FM10, and that was a dog by
any standards.

Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

Ha ha! Logarithmically totally out of my price range! But I've heard that
they are something special. (the 43mm lens looks very nice...)

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks more
like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm "Limited
Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't particularly like
them, because the designers have given the sharpness at the expense of
bokeh. The 77mm is not too bad, but it just cannot compete with the
superlative 85mm f/1.4 A* for bokeh.

24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

A goldmine of information... many thanks. Although do you really think the
50mm f2.0 is any good? It's just that I've actually got one, and havn't
used it since I got disappointing results from a trip to South Africa. I
think it had the resolution, but the colour was a bit bland and
non-contrasty. However, there are loads of other factors, like it being in
rubbish condition, having no UV filter, and I can't remember the processing.

I have a 50mm f/2 and it is just fine. The best of the 50mm lenses is
probably the f/1.7, although the f/1.4 K runs it pretty close and the
f/1.4 A beats the equivalent Leica M optic for its sublime combination
of sharpness and bokeh.

I'm eyeing the 24mm and 28mm....

The 28mm f/2.8 A is the best of these, with the 28mm f/3.5 K not far
behind. Avoid the M.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

Good point. Looks like I'm tending towards Pentax here.

If you really like the OM4Ti, and have money to spend, I can put you
in touch with a used camera specialist who regularly offers the best
of the Zuikos in excellent to mint condition. But the prices are
several times what you would pay for Pentax lenses on eBay.

Hmmm... The LX sounds a great camera, apart from this sticky mirror problem.
If I were to spend 200+ on an LX and then another 100 for servicing I think
I'd be a touch disapointed. But if it last 15 years, then I suppose it
might be worth it.

I did exactly that; I bought an LX with a sticky mirror and had it
serviced. It has had a lot of hard use and is 100% reliable.

Isn't a hand held meter big, clunky, expensive and awkard to use?

Yes, but it is the best practical way of measuring incident, rather
than reflected light. If you are using slides, or digital, the
combination of an incident meter and reflected light spot meter in one
casing makes for a very versatile tool.

Do you anything about the 50mm f1.8? I think that would be what I'd start
with if I were to go for an OM4 in the future.

See my comments near the top of this reply. There are a lot of worn
and neglected Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 lenses available. They seem especially
prone to fungus. If you manage to find a good one, they are an
excellent buy.

I currently have a Pentax Super-A, and the X-700 doesn't look too
dissimilar. I don't have any problems with the Super-A, apart from it would
be nice to have a camera that feels more solid and with 100% viewfinder
coverage (or near there).

The Super-A is super solid. I have two, both of which I bought in
near mint condition. One is kept in reserve, the other has had a lot
of use but still keeps going. I have a shutter tester which checks
manual shutter speeds and auto exposure, and the Super-A is spot on.

The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

Yes, the FM3A seems a very nice camera, at a reasonable price. However, I
was surprised to find it didn't have a 100% viewfinder (I thought most top
Nikon's did). And what you say about he glass is very enticing...
Particularly as they are Nikon lenses.

The FM, FE, FM2, FE2 and FM3A all have less-than-100% viewfinders.
The only Nikon film bodies with 100% viewfinders are the F, F2, F3,
F4, F5 and F6.

However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

That is surprising.

Not surprising when you think of Nikon's target market, professional
shooters, particularly photojournalists. Any finely graded rendition
of tones and smooth rendition of out-of-focus highlights is instantly
lost when you use an 85- or 133-line screen of the kind that was used
in newspaper reprographics departments. Nikon lenses are optimised
for sharpness and contrast, which is what newspaper picture editors
wish to see.

Do you know of any manual cameras with 100% or
near to that viewfinder coverage. My Super-A has 92%, which can be slightly
annoying. The LX has an excellent 98%, FM3a 93%, Olympus OM4 97%, X-700
92%.

All the Nikon F{single digit} cameras have 100%, plus I think (not
sure) the Canon EOS 1, 1N and 1V have it.

The Pentax MX has 95%. That's another body worth considering; manual
focus, manual exposure, but it has interchangeable focusing screens
and is exceptionally robust. get a good one and it will last forever,
or until the electronics go phut! - but the shutter is purely
mechanical so you only lose metering. My favourite Pentax outfit was
LX + MX (or Super A) and five or six lenses.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
"Norm Fleming" wrote:

Well I didn't know that either, Duncan, and I still don't. You are basing
a
lot on the opinion of a single poster

... a single poster, yes, but one who has extensively used both
systems being discussed, and who has no particular brand loyalty.

There is no shortage of opinionated people on Usenet and the Web who
have used just one system, or another, and probably only one or two
consumer-grade lenses at that. If you prefer to accept their biased
opinions, that is your choice.

Hang on a minute there, just let me see if I can get my simple mind around
this, and I've got it right - the opinions of others are biased, but yours
are not ? And this must be so, because you tell us so ? AhHa - now I
understand, pathetic idiot that I am. The scales have finally fallen from
my eyes! So there's really no point to this discussion group at all then?
Might as well shove off in that case - toodle pip!

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

Both are crap...

who cares...?

wrote in message
ups.com...

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

Both are crap...

who cares...?

I may not have made it clear that I was in fact comparing two cameras I was
thinking of buying, and therefore thought were both excellent, rather than,
as you obviously misunderstood me, for trying to work out which one comes
second worse on the all time worst 35mm cameras ever made. For interest's
sake, please tell me what is at the opposite end of your intriging list, so
that I may enlightened (and don't spend any money on a crap camera).

Duncan.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

[SNIP]

Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

The 135mm f1.8 A* is another very fine lens in the star series, which
continues into the current AF lenses too, with the F* and FA* ranges, whihc
both work just as well on manual focus bodies. The 200m f2.8 FA*, in
particular, is a wonderful lens.


24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

I'd go along with all of that, except for maybe not feeling that the 200mm
f4 is as strong as the others mentioned - except in the A* (macro) version.

Others I'd add to the list that I have used and particularly like are the
30mm f2.8 K (not easy to find), 85mm f1.8 K, and the 135mm f2.5 K (not the
'Takumar bayonet' f2.5 version, which is a budget alternative and not nearly
so good.) I personally like the 120mm f2.8 as well, but this is also hard
to find. The 28mm f3.5 K and 35mm f3.5K are also excellent, and quite
light. The rectilinear super-wides are very good too: the 15, 18, and 20 -
though none of these is an inexpensive purchase.

All the Pentax macro lenses are very good, though the current 100mm f3.5 is
a budget alternative to the top-of-the-line f2.8, and is said to perform
accordingly - the f2.8 is spectacularly good.

I have a number of Pentax zoom lenses, mostly newer ones, and can vouch
strongly for the 28-70mm f4 FA AL - it is more or less the optical equal of
the f2.8, but at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight. The current
24-90mm is very good too. I don't have a Pentax zoom in the 80-200 range,
so can't comment here (I use an Angenieux 70-210 instead, and find it fits
well with the 'look' of the Pentax glass.) Oh, well, I do have the 80-320,
and it is good for the price and the range, but I only use it when I
_really_ need to cover all that range in a single lens, which is not often.


I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

If only more posters adopted that attitude!

[SNIP]

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

Pentax UK claims that they use new materials when they replace the foam and
rubber compononents, and the newer ones should have a much longer life. I
don't know that anyone has had them long enough to find out for sure yet, of
course...

I like the 'look' I get with Pentax glass better than any other 35mm system
that I've used, but this is a very personal thing. It seems to me more of a
close match to the look I get with my Schneider lenses for medium and large
format than other 35mm manufacturers, and is often said to be the most
'German' looking of all the Japanese makers, with which I would agree. I
might marginally prefer Leica for black and white, but it is marginal: for
colour Pentax remains my favourite. And the SMC coating is unbeaten.



Peter

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

I suppose the flippant answer would be that most LXs ever made still
work...

And the OM4? Do they break down a lot? That would be a definite negative
for me...

Well... The LX has a reputation for going on forever, though you need to
have the mirror buffers, damping foam, etc. replaced. The OMs used to be
teased by many pro.s as feeling too fragile, and I know they never had the
reliability of the Nikon Fs that most such users carried - but then few
things other than bricks have the build of a Nikon F or a Pentax LX, so I
wouldn't necessarily let that worry you. I was deliberately being flippant
by reviving an old joke.

If you intend to work a lot in the field miles from repair facilities, in
adverse conditions, and depend on your camera for your income, maybe you
wouldn't use an OM - but then in that situation whatever you used you'd be
carring a couple of spares. In a more benign environment I wouldn't feel
worried: I'd trust the 'toughness' of an old OM more than many modern
cameras.


But more seriously, I think if you handle one, you'll know the answer.
And while I much prefer the LX, the OM4Ti should surely be counted as
something of a classic too, though more for its electronics than
anything else -
this isn't a case of "there can only be one".

I've handled both the LX and the OM4 (not Ti), and found the OM4 to be
extremely competent, particularly regarding the funky lcd metering, which
seems to be precise to 1/3 stop, and very comprehensive with exposure lock
and spot metering. I think it is more on the gadgety side, especially re
the highlight and shadow buttons which are totally unecessary, and are not
adjustable for different film.

Some people love those highlight and shadow meter options, but I probably
wouldn't see much use for them - if I'm using a spot meter (which I do, a
separate one, a lot) I'd rather make my own decisions about how far to bias
the exposure up or down from the highlight, shadow, or whatever else I
choose to meter on.

When I have to use an in camera meter, I love the LX's very _predictable_
meter, and can cheerily decide how to adjust my exposure around the meter
reading. It is superb for long exposures too.


I suppose that the LX has a much more professional feel to it, with the
safe
exposure compensation and sturdy parts.

I like the way it handles, and it does feel very 'solid' to me. I also make
a reasonable amount of use of the interchangeable viewfinders. The dust
sealing really works too. I have five of them - 'nuff said...


What about the optics? How does Olympus glass compare to Pentax glass
around this era?

I've answered this below, by adding my own comments to Tony's post on this
subject. Basically, there are some great Zuiko lenses, but the Pentax line
has a more consistently high quality - and personally I really like the
'look' I get with Pentax glass.




Peter

Leicaflex SL or SL-2. They're 30-40 years old and still work great.

The lenses are plentiful and superb.

Don't waste your money on either of those pieces of crap.

Check with KEH or look on e-bay.



Duncan J Murray wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

Both are crap...

who cares...?

I may not have made it clear that I was in fact comparing two cameras
I was
thinking of buying, and therefore thought were both excellent, rather
than,
as you obviously misunderstood me, for trying to work out which one
comes
second worse on the all time worst 35mm cameras ever made. For
interest's
sake, please tell me what is at the opposite end of your intriging
list, so
that I may enlightened (and don't spend any money on a crap camera).

Duncan.

wrote:
Leicaflex SL or SL-2. They're 30-40 years old and still work great.
The lenses are plentiful and superb.

As much as I don't like the tone of the posting, I do agree with the
statement.

On the plus side:
They have the brightest & most accurate focussing screens I've ever seen.
Also the smoothest and most dampened shutter & mirror operation.
Some of the lenses are fantastic.
Accurate focus + low vibration + great lens = GOOD!

On the negative side:
Weight (esp. the lenses)!
Cost; despite the prices having greatly fallen (thank you digital!),
they are still much more expensive than comparable Penstax or Olympus
equipment.
Also, for the SL, the number of usable ultra-wideangle lenses is very
limited (though it is with teles that the focussing & dampening
adfvantages of the Leicaflexes really comes out).
Not all lenses are worth what they cost, but then some are...


Don't waste your money on either of those pieces of crap.


Here I totally disagree, especially concerning Pentaxes (which I have
often and happily used).
I've rarely used Olympuses, but have always had the impression that they
were overpriced for what they offer (o.k. Leica-haters; here's your
chance to flame me!)
: )



--
"Daddy! Daddy!! A nice man at the market took our old Leicaflex and
180mm Apo-Telyt and gave me a MAGICAL camera with 20x digital zoom and
anti red-eye function!!!"
"Well done Jack! YeeeHaw!! Now we can take some really good pikkers!!!"