Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: More newby questions
From: dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk (David Morton)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 22:49 BST-1
Cc: dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk

In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960926140035.006af690@roanoke.infi.net>
> At 07:11 AM 9/26/96 -0400, Ken Wilcox wrote:
> 
> 
> >The 20mm Russian will work with the camera but is not optically 
> >up to Leica standards. It is, however, MUCH less expensive than the 
> >21mm
> Super-Angulon.
> 
> I'm really not certain I'd agree with this, as it depends what optical
> characteristic you're analyzing.  The Russar is a Topogon clone, and as 
> such
> suffers from the slow speed inherent in that design.  But it is a bit
> sharper, has less distortion, and less edge fade-out than the 
> Super-Angulon
> design.  The Topogon is a superlative design and, for all its slowness, 
> is
> quite competitive today.  Of course, Russian quality control is sloppy,
> sloppy, sloppy, and some of these lenses are undoubtedly dogs.  But the 
> most
> of them seem quite sound performers and certainly most of those who use 
> them
> seem content with their qualities.

I haven't seen Ken Wilcox's entire message yet (something amis here, 
perhaps), but I'm interested in your comment about "less edge fade-out", 
because the man in the shop today said they vignetted badly.

He also said that he didn't see the point in putting a non-Leitz lens on 
a Leica, and I could understand that. But is the vignetting a real 
problem? The one I've seen is only UKP260 with finder, I could *never* 
justify a Super-Angulon.


Replies: Reply from "joe b." <joe-b@dircon.co.uk> (More Russar questions)