RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake

[Jeffery Smith <JLS@runbox.com>]

Resale value is the determining factor in lens quality? No wonder the new 
Nokton is so bad!  If it sells for retail, it is (IMO) a bargain. Jeeze, 
I'll never be able to look at the images I took with that again. If only 
the darned thing had cost more!!

JLS

At 11:13 PM 8/31/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Interesting error in your thinking you make as I stated that the picture(s)
>were of poor quality, that it was impossible to say what type of lens they
>were taken by - I never claimed that they were taken by a Leica product.
>
>Some individuals, however, seem to feel the need to justify the sum they
>spent on their Japanese lenses to which I have only one opinion - what of
>the resale value of their products in say 10 or 20 years?
>
>My old Nikon equipment is worth small fractions of what I paid for it
>originally. If I remember correctly, I think it is worth about 25% of what I
>originally paid for it.
>
>I think it will be found that, for the most part, for the owners of the vast
>majority of Japanese equipment, that the value of their lenses (and
>bodies)will be but a small fraction of the sum(s) originally spent.  Looked
>at in this way, it may indeed be cheaper (read "wiser") to invest in Leica
>product(s).
>
>I wait with baited breath to hear from those who claim that the market is
>wrong....
>
>Fred Sears
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of B. D. Colen
>Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:55 PM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake
>
>
>Thanks, Dante - I guess when one's sense of self-worth depends upon the
>brand of equipment one ones, one must feel pretty foolish discovering that a
>$450 Japanese lens is every bit as good as that high-priced equipment. By
>the way, that's not my assessment - it's the assessment of the much admired
>Erwin Puts, who I believe acknowledged that the Nokton is a bit sharper, and
>contrastier, than the Summilux at maximum aperture, although clearly the
>Summilux is a better constructed lens - as well it should be at about four
>times the price. And, I would also note, to be fair, that there are those
>who do not like the Nokton's bokah. I believe that Johnny Deadman got rid of
>his for that very reason.
>
>B. D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Dante
>Stella
>Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:01 PM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake
>
>
>
>Fred,
>
>You can see a shot from that very lens at
>
>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nokton.html
>
>The Nokton is a very capable optic, by some accounts better than the
>current Summilux wide-open.  The Nikkor, the other contestant, beat the
>hell out of the Summarit.  It took Leica 10 years to surpass it.
>
>As to the balance of your comments (I guess they are directed at BD but
>are also a slight at Peter), I would suggest that you mind your manners.
>
>Regards
>Dante
>
>On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Fred Sears wrote:
>
> >
> > $498? For that lens?
> >
> > Must be a typo for $4.98.
> >
> > Or .05 cents.
> >
> > Not a surprise that the photos seemed so poorly focused and improperly
> > exposed.
> >
> > Absolutely incredible that these were even posted and then to have the
> > photographer brag that the glass was good for the money??
> >
> > I think a Coke Classic bottle used as a lens could make better
> > pictures...(the original Coke Classic of course!).
> >
> > Hey, if you can't swing the Leica glass why berate those who can?
> >
> > Personally, I'd love to own a C4 but I can't swing it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html