Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/21

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: filter usage + lens tests
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:57:07 -0800

<snip>A 35/2 Summicron R and a 50/2 Summicron R. Are the new lenses better
than those made 20 years ago ? Absolutely not. <snip>

Now my question, what do base your findings on?  Testing procedures?
Ownership?

<snip> They are NOT Minolta lenses and have NOT been redesigned.<snip> 

Did Leica tell you this?

<snip> Four R lenses have been re-designed recently. And they were
PREVIOUSLY LEICA LENSES not Minolta lenses. The 19, 28, 50/1.4, and 180/2.8
APO <snip>.

Prove it!  Because it is labeled Leica does not mean it was not Minolta!
Minolta made a damn good 28mm F2.8 lens.  Have you taken each lens apart and
compared the elements and designs?  I know people who have and those that
are knowledgable tell me a few were Minolta lenses even though they were
labeled otherwise.  Maybe soomewhat modified Minolta lenses.
Hey the 35-70 is made by Kyocera and the 80-200 F4 by Sigma, yet Sigma does
not sell this focal length/F-stop combination under the Sigma label, does
that mean the lens is not a Sigma made lens?

<snip>The ONLY Minolta lenses are.<snip>

That does not mean they are the only lenses Minolta makes.  You may be
surprised to learn who makes glass/lenses for whom.  And unless you are an
employee of Leica, don't believe everything you hear.  Even then, I would
not.

<snip> The only Minolta candidate for "actual redesign" would be the 24.
Don't hold your breath
because the current, old, Minolta, 24/2.8 R lens is a fine performer. Been
around since 1974. <snip>

So what does this mean?  Do you honestly think a company leave tooling in
place whitout change for 25 years?  I don't think so.  Newer improve tooling
WILL produce better lenses, even older designs.

Enjoy your system.  You don't need to justify it.