In article <32C188DC.52BB@ix.netcom.com>, mathison@ix.netcom.com says...
>chris kulczycki wrote:
>> In article <32C00489.536D@ix.netcom.com>, mathison@ix.netcom.com says...
>> >George Klein wrote:

>> >> Looking to purchase a high end 35mm SLR.
>> >> Would like opinions on Nikon F4 vs. Contax RTS III vs. Leica R8
>> >> Both on mechanical and optical issues.

>> >Optically both Leica and Contax blow Nikon away .

>> Have you used these cameras? Have you sold hundreds of images shot with them
>?
>> I have, using many Leicas and Nikons, and I tell you that there is virtually
>> no differance in optical quality with the current lenses. If I showed you
>> chromes shot with, say a 50mm summicron and a 50mm nikkor, do you think you
>> could tell them apart? Try it.

>Yeah actually I have used them. I shot a pile of stuff with a Nikon 60mm
>Macro lens was very happy with the result and then shot another pile of
>stuff with a Contax 60mm macro lens. Big Difference. The nikon stuff
>looked soft - annoyed the hell out of me. Same setup, same objects, same
>lighting.
> Note: the Nikon lense was from their high end line. Both cameras and
>lenses were from the same rental house.
>Admittidly this is a single lens from an entire line. but it is a first
>hand observation. Note: In my post I did point out the price difference.
[rest deleted...]

Um, um, um...., hmmmm.... It appears (as you said) that you based your conclusions of the entire lens lines on a comparison of one lens from each
(and from a rental house, at that) - having used several 60mm Nikkors (and
all other macros made by Nikon), it is THE BEST macro from a maker of
excellent macro lenses, and could hardly be called soft in the macro range unless damaged, dirty, defective, or used with poor technique. If you are
going to make a broad statement comparing lens lines, do base it on
information more reliable than what you gave....;-) (And use lenses less
likely to have been abused...)
Hope This Helps