Re: Japanese "M" mount

[TTAbrahams@aol.com]

Patrick,
 I did test and try out the Avenor 21/2,8 and the Avenor 28/3,5 in 1996. =
The
21/2,8 is good value for the money and albeit a bit soft wide open perfor=
med
very well otherwise. The Avenor 28/3,5 was OK but not as crisp as I would
have liked it. It performed somewhat like an old Summaron 28/5,6. I have
heard that it has been re-released in Japan with improved coating and mor=
e
blades in the aperture (10 instead of 6). I have not had a chance to try =
it
out yet. There is somewhat of a cottage industry in Japan when it comes t=
o
making Leica compatible lenses. Ricoh released a 28/2,8 ( 7 elements with=
 two
aspeherical elements) in June (Chrome version) and this week in a limited
edition in black. Konica has released a 50/2,4 Hexanon in a collapsible L=
eica
screw mount ( chrome lens, six elements, two center pairs are cemented), =
I
have had one of these for 4 month and it is a very good lens. Wide open i=
t
outperforms the 50/2.8 Elmar in its new configuration and the Elmar is
slightly more contrasty at 5,6 and 8. It is priced at Yen 68 000 in Tokyo=
 and
is widely available according to my Japanese shooter friends. There is a
slight difference in contrast between the Hexanon and the Elmar (new
version). The Japanese lens is softer and lacks some of the punch of the
Elmar.  Konice also made a very limited production of the 35/2 Hexar lens=
 in
Leica compatible screw mount. It was a small run of 1000 or so lenses and=
 it
has already achieved collectible status , more due to the low production =
than
the performance that was somewhat lackluster according to shooters who tr=
ied
it.
  I have no problem with anyone making lenses for Leicas, if the lens sui=
ts
my shooting it could be made by the local bottling plant for all I care. =
In
the case of the Japanese lenses I have tried out, they are uniformly
acceptable in performance, they tend to have some peculiarities when it c=
omes
to contrast and colorrendition and the mounts tends to be made from light=
er
alloys than Leicas. If you are a heavy user of the lens, it might only la=
st
50% or 70% of what the corresponding Leica lens would, but it also most
likely only cost you 35-50% of what the Leica lens did. Your call!
 I am waiting for my 28/2,8 Ricoh and 35/2 Hexar and should have them by =
the
end of this month. The 28/2,8 I had a chance to shoot with in Tokyo in
February, it was a prototype lens, but the images were more than
satisfactory. The price I have seen quoted on this lens is Yen 98 000 for=
 the
chrome version, with a finder. The Avenor finders (21 and 28mm lenses) ar=
e
HUGE but very good and 1/3 of the price of Leicas. This means I can drop =
or
destroy 3 of them at the same cost as I have to pay for one Leica finder.=
 Not
a bad deal.
 I think we should all remember that the camera and lens are only as good=
 as
the person who uses it and in most cases modern lenses can outperform mos=
t
commonly used film, particularly if you are a black/white or color neg fi=
lm
shooter. Sometimes it is great to be able to buy a lens in a slightly les=
s
used focal length and keep it around, without having to starve for a long
time to afford it I also think it is good with competition, Leica has rul=
ed
the rangefinder market for too long and the emergence of =93pirate=94 gla=
ss and
other rangefinders is only good  as it has forced them from their complac=
ency
of the last 10-15 years. The products that they have let out in the last =
2-3
years prove that. The  35/1,4 ASPH, the 24/2,8 ASPH and the 35/2 ASPH are
only the beginning I presume. I would love to see an upgraded 50/1,4, a s=
mall
75/2,4 APO and an improved 90/2 and of course all the modifications I can
imagine on the M6. Hey, one can dream and the 24/2,8 ASPH proves that dre=
ams
sometimes comes true!
Tom