Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?
From: "Joe B." <joe-b@dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:32:04 -0700
References: <39A29592.FEEDB61B@baer.rwth-aachen.de> <006f01c00bec$5ac7ba00$c0dffea9@d2p8j6> <39A21F2A.D59C5642@baer.rwth-aachen.de> <009101c00c5d$41435f00$d8d35818@triad.rr.com>

At 13:52 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Which ones don't?  It is true that Minolta makes a slew of budget minded
>consumer oriented lenses (as do Nikon and Canon etc.), but their "serious"
>lenses (such as the 100/2.8 macro, the 200/2.8 APO, all their 50s, their
>85/1.4 etc., etc.) are excellent lenses, and if they are less than Leica
>equivalents, it will only be apparent under the most exacting test
>conditions.  For instance, part from it propensity to flare (but manageble
>with my 100% viewfinder in my 9),  I can't distinguish my Minolta 50 from
>my 50 Summilux-M.
>
>In fact, I have some test pics taklen with my minolta 50, my Summilux 50
>and my DR 50.  I will rescan them using Vuescan to try and get identical
>scans, and post them.. you pick out the Minolta, if you can.  Give me a day
>or two to find the negatives.
>
>Dan C

That will be interesting to look at. Can you say which Minolta 50 you are 
talking about- if the AF 50/1.4, is it the old or new version?

Joe B.

Replies: Reply from Mickey Rosenthal <michelr@inter.net.il> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
In reply to: Message from Axel Schwieker <axel@baer.rwth-aachen.de> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from "Terry Sham" <tsham@netvigator.com> ([Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from Axel Schwieker <axel@baer.rwth-aachen.de> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)