Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] lens sample variations
From: "Richard W. Hemingway" <rheming@attglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:33:08 -0600
References: <4.0.2.20001223114219.008f6800@127.0.0.1> <Pine.NEB.4.05.10012231116290.5224-100000@bronze.lcs.mit.ed u> <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHIEIPEPAA.ddh@home.com>

At 02:39 PM 12/23/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I missed the original information, so I apologize for asking, but what was
>the reason for acquiring four of these?  Were you unsatisfied with the
>performance of each until you found the one you have now?  Of lenses 1-4,
>which is the lens you kept?

Dave,

I didn't give the reason <gr>!!  However, before I retired as a law prof I
split my outside consulting income and income from by books with my wife
(who mostly invested hers and is supporting me now <gr>!!!)  and bought
camera equipment with mine.  I don't remember why I bought all four.  The
first one I bought when they first came out and was dissapointed as it
didn't pass the "dreaded Christmas Tree test."   Coma in the corners and on
the edges.  From time to time I have gone back and forth from the M to the
R cameras and I guess in one of these variations of the M I bought the two
bad ones.  I should say the other wasn't bad by any terms but not quite
where I thought it should be.  I shoot mostly Kodachrome and project it
with a Pradovit P-2002 projector and SuperColorPlan 90/2.5 lens on a 60 x
60 matt screen.  None of these four lenses was bad - but was it doing what
I thought a lens that cost that much should do??

Dick

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] lens sample variations)
In reply to: Message from "Richard W. Hemingway" <rheming@attglobal.net> (Re: [Leica] lens sample variations)
Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> ([Leica] lens sample variations)