Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/29

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica-Users List Digest V2 #125
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:41:19 -0600

At 12:46 PM 1/29/98 +0000, you wrote:

>that they didn't seem to beat the Canonet 40/1.7, in either corner
sharpness or 
>vignetting wide open. Then again, my main concern in any testing I do is
heavily 

Interesting. But then, it's quite a bit slower (in terms of physical
dimensions of the lens). So maybe that's a reason why. Wider and faster is
harder to design. But a Canonet? Wow!

>I haven't used either of these primarily because I'm satisfied with the
Contax lens 
>and the various 35's and 40's (CL, CLE, C'net, 7sII, Hexar etc.) I've
amassed.

Well, I'm sure it's no slouch. Zeiss doesn't make junk. But until you've
used the 35 Summilux R in the field, you really can't appreciate how
wonderful a lens it is. As others have pointed out there, Leica lenses
don't always test out as well as one might expect, but then use them and va
va va voom! :-)

>Going back to another conversation for a minute: If Leica was adding English 
>electronics to the R4, they must've been preoccupied with something other
than 
>having the camera work. In the mid 70's, only the English had a worse
reliability rep 
>than German electronics did. 

Well, at least it's a step up. :-)
==========

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

Pi R Squared? No Pi R round, Cornbread R Square!