Re: [Leica]Konica Hexar...It ain't no Leica..

["dominique pellissier" <noct@club-internet.fr>]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Lucien <director@ubi.edu>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica]Konica Hexar...It ain't no Leica..


>
>
> dominique pellissier wrote:
>
> > Next time I'll try a practical comparison between my 2/35 non asph and
the
> > tri-elmar.
> > But, if we compare MTF tests published by Leica, between the 35 asph and
the
> > tri-elmar at a focal length of  35 mm, and both the 2 lenses at 5.6, we
> > observe that the 35 is clearly the winner.
> > For CI, the tri- is "very good, good". And the 35 is "excellent, very
good".
>
> Dominique,
>
> What I want to point is that the Tri-Elmar is better (in my opinion) than
what
> CI say about it.
> And the same for the APO 90/2 ASPH.
> There is more difference between the former 90/2 and the APO than what
they
> said IMO.
> But maybe they tested two below average lenses in both those tests.
>
> > Yes, I know, "CI is -as other photographic reviews- totally bought off
to
> > Nikon, or Canon or Minolta. And only Leica foto is an independent
> > review".;-))
>
> Dominique,
>
> I'm reading CI since more than 20 years now, and I never missed one issue.
> I know perfectly well they are not sold to any company.
> But they are sometimes biased by there own beliefs.
> And that's part of their strengths.
> They have strong beliefs and that's great.
> But they are certainly not not omniscient.
>
> By the way, I cannot read MTF graphs like you do.
> All I can do is take pictures and look at it with a loupe or project them
on a
> screen.
> And there I can see that the Tri-Elmar is really a great lens.
> It's really an achievement when you realize all the constraints they had
in
> order to make it happen.
> It was much more difficult to design it than a Reflex zoom.
>
> Lucien
>
>
########
Lucien,

Maybe am I too "dogmatic" in the sense I put my faith in CDI' s tests and
I'd  better buy the tri-elmar and compare it to my summicron 35.
But a tri-elmar is very expensive (18000 FRF or 3000 USD) and when I see ads
such as : "for sale tri-elmar as new", I ask myself : why do they sell this
outstanding gem bought 18 KF and resold only 11KF ? Why do they accept to
loose 7KF ?
As you know the second-hand market for Leica products is bigger than the
market for new products. Why ?


I don't think there are Leica lenses under the average. If it was the case,
Leica would be a pretty bad manufacturer !