Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:32 PM -0500 2/18/00, Austin Franklin wrote: >>>>Right, but they supposedly aren't as optically good as the second >version<<< > >Heh! Funny, isn't it, how the products that the company is trying to >sell currently somehow get reassuring comments circulated about them? > >[Austin] Do you have any information that says the first versions are any >better? I take it you don't believe Erwin is correct in his assessment >that the 2nd version is optically better because of only one aspherical >surface? > >Dan C has offered to test the two out, if someone wants to send him a 2nd >version....but until then, all one can do is speculate... > >I'll put my money (or at least less of it, that is ;-) on the later version >for now...until it's proven via some reasonable tests, not just random >drive by shootings, that if I spend over 2x the money I'll get superior >results...if it ends up they're the same, to me, it isn't worth the extra >dough... > >---------------- I've shot with both, and while I wasn't able to do any side by side comparisons, in my estimation and having achieved at least a Masters in Finickiness I would say that any difference in performance between the two versions is slight. The higher price of the first version is based on the higher original new price, due to higher manufacturing cost, and the whim of collectors, who value it more highly due to a) this being the first double ashpherical Leica lens, and b) relative rarity. Optical performance is not likely a factor. A 50/3.5 Leitz Anastigmat is valued higher than a coated 50/3.5 Elmar, but not due to higher performance. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com