Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This has been my point (sometimes misunderstood) about Erwin's reports. Erwin is definitely able to find differences between lenses, and I have no argument with people who find those differences important, but I believe that many LUGers needlessly base their buying decisions in the belief that their photographs will be significantly better with the "better" lens. I am convinced that most LUGers (certainly I include myself here) cannot distinguish a photograph taken with an older "poor" lens from one taken with the latest and greatest version, when viewing the print as it normally would be viewed. Dan C. At 04:45 PM 07-08-00 -0400, B. D. Colen wrote: >Once you get past Erwin's bench tests, is there really a "bad" version of >the Summicron 35?...I've owned various versions over the years - I assume, >as I've purchased them all used at widely different period of my life - and >they've all be terrific performers. > >B. D. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of >> Krechtz@aol.com >> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 4:19 PM >> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm Summicron, version differences >> >> >> In a message dated 8/7/00 3:32:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >> pklein@2alpha.net >> writes: >> >> << I have a chance to buy a 35mm 'cron, serial 2,8xx,xxx, in "almost like >> new" condition for a little over $700. >> >> >> I have it, use it and can recommend it highly. It is not >> markedly inferior >> to the Summicron-M, and it has desirable qualities all its own. In the >> condition you describe, the price appears right. Retail could be >> as high as >> $900.00, or more. >> >> Joe Sobel >> > > >