Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<snip>Of the five lenses that everyone knows that were designed and manufactured by Minolta, I have three. The 24, 35-70, and 70-210. They are all great lenses. I don't care where they were made. I knew where they were made before I bought them. This is not an issue.<snip> So why are you arguiing with me that Minolta designed lenses were not redone by Leica? <snip>Peter, this isn't an argument between you and me. It's my desire to not let unsubstantiated, blanket comments, be taken as truthful, without a very good explanation. Over the years, on the LUG, I have been guilty of making all encompassing statements, only to find out later that my defense was too weak, and my sources were not entirely truthful. Things are said and heard, out of context, and sometimes with a hidden agenda. This is why Erwin and Marc are such treasures. They both have numerous contacts and volumes of information that the rest of us don't have. And Erwin has access to the archives and principles in Solms. So naturally, when they speak, we all listen. Neither speaks, without documented positive proof and/or intimate knowledge.<snip> Thanks for saying that. I was beginning to take it personal. People on this group are great for the most part, but jeezzz, you attack each other when someone claims something out of the ordinary. <snip>What you have said "could" indeed be true. But from my (and I'm sure many other LUGgers) point of view, you basically have no data to support your claim that "all of the old R lenses are Minolta lenses." And you cannot name the lenses. And since everyone else knows exactly which five lenses were designed and manufactured by Minolta, that'll be the way it is until someone, whose credentials are known, explains the details to the contrary.<snip> But you just indicated something to the contrary in your previous paragraph. Minolta/Leitz technology agreement started in 1971. The original SLR from Leica in 1965 along with the Summilux 50mm F1.4. Now... some very quick internet research and some dates: We know that the 16, 24, and 80-200 lenses are Minolta lenses. They were introduced in 1974. This is about when the Leitz/Minolta stuff started. At R3 design time, I believe. However, the Leicaflex STD, the SL, and the SL2 all came before the R cameras and before Minolta. Somewhere around 1964. The following reflex lenses were designed and on the market before a Minolta technology interchange existed. Basically for the Leicaflex. 28/2.8 introduced 1970 35/2.0 introduced 1972 35/2.8 introduced 1964 50/1.4 introduced 1969 50/2.0 introduced 1964 60/2.8 introduced 1972 90/2.0 introduced 1969 90/2.8 introduced 1964 100/4 introduced 1968 135/2.8 introduced 1964 180/2.8 introduced 1968 250/4.0 introduced 1970 400/6.8 introduced 1971 560/6.8 introduced 1971 800/6.3 introduced 1972 Upon looking at this list, and knowing that these lenses were made in Wetzlar and Canada for the Leicaflex cameras, should one believe that suddenly, at the introduction of the R camera (a Minolta body frame), in 1976, that Wetzlar decided to abandon all of these lenses and have Minolta re-design and produce them? If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Oklahoma that I would like to sell you. Real cheap... But this could have happened and I will accept it if it did. But right now, it defys logic. I DID NOT SAY ALL!! The only true 100% Leica designed and manufactured lenses are M lenses. I'll stick with the "proven" knowledge that the 16, 24, 35-70, 80-200/70-210, and 500 lenses are Minolta lenses. The rest are Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, and an Angenieux. Good! If someone out there has proof, other than hearsay, to the contrary, I certainly would like to know, as would numerous other LUGgers. Sorry folks, It goes against my grain to allow hearsay to stand as fact. "Facts," one way or the other, would be appreciated. Jim