Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:32 AM 21/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >The 2.8/50 Elmar is 2.8, so their designations seem to cross boundries. >>No need to be confused on this. Unlike most other lenses, Leica lenses are >>named according to their maximum aperture, regardless of focal length. >> >>f/1.4 summilux >>f/2.0 summicron >>f/2.8 elmarit >>f/4 elmar >> >>There are a few older, discontinued lenses in the line with other >>designations. (Other LUG members could complete the above list with these, >>I'm sure. ) Good point about the elmar. I forgot about this. While on this point, the noctilux also has a different max aperture from its predecessor. Can someone provide more information about the origins of this nomenclature for lens designations, and why there are inconsistencies? As Marc put it in a recent reply, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Are these names arbitrary, like the 5-letter codes for various parts, or do they actually MEAN something? - -GH