Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/09

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

Subject: Re: Vs: [Leica] viso/65elmar
From: Krechtz@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:33:07 EDT

In a message dated 10/9/00 5:01:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
henningw@archiphoto.com writes:

<< I had the chrome one for about 8 years, and then the black one for 10. No
 contest. The later one was clearly better in both resolution and contrast,
 and the difference in what may be called 'brilliance' was very large. Shots
 with the first one looked muted in comparison.
  >>

Sartorius describes the later (1969) black version as having the same optical 
design as the chrome.  Presumably, this is correct, since the Elmar name is 
retained.  However, Leitz used later-developed glass, which necessitated that 
it be "recalculated".  Laney uses the term "recomputed".  Neither book has 
production figures for either version.  I have heard elsewhere, however, that 
far fewer black mounts were produced.  This seems logical, as Leica users in 
all likelihood increasingly switched from Visoflex to SLR lenses for close 
and copy work after 1969, with corresponding decreases in production of the 
65/3.5 V in favor of the 60/2.8 R.

Joe Sobel