Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/20

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Buzz Hausner's Rant re: M3
From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:41:46 +0100

Dante,
I have had a couple of Canon lenses with fungus in them, a 50/2.8 and a late 100/4.
But then I've also had quite a few without, I've not noticed a real standard of difference between that marque and Leitz.
Jem
- -----Original Message-----
From:	Mark Langer [SMTP:mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca]
Sent:	19 September 2000 17:05
To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc:	Mark Langer
Subject:	[Leica] Buzz Hausner's Rant re: M3

Gee, Buzz.  Lighten up.  Dante was just asking some questions about his M3
performance and about Canon lenses.

What I find amazing about this group is that someone will ask perfectly
inoffensive questions about Leicas and they get slapped right down.  But
when some people go on and on about watches, single malts or
self-congratuatory threads about how their ownership of a Leica,
Porsche and Rolex really makes them a breed apart, the Buzzes of this
world remain silent.

Dante, I find what you were discussing both interesting and germane to the
interests of a list that calls itself the Leica Users Group.  Re: your
query about Canon lenses, I think that they were using harder glass,
vacuum applied lens coatings and different lubricants than Leica. 
Certainly, I've rarely encountered problems with Canon lenses.  Only
encountered one with haze (an early 50mm f1.9) and one with fungus that
cleaned right up.  The biggest problem with Canon LTM lenses is that
sometimes self-appointed guardians of the list will try and censor you
when you bring them up.

Mark 


- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Langer

Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------