Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would like to jump to Erwin's defence her. The whole scientific point of the lens alternatives was to evaluate whether it was lens quality influencing the unexpected results. IMHO Erwins methodology was thoroughly appropriate. Don't be demoralised Erwin some LUGgers read and enjoyed your post and you have whetted our appetite for the revelations in the next part. Also Steven PLEASE don't append the whole long post to your reply it is so unnecessary. cheers Frank - ---------- Steven Gandy wrote snip > Your three lens choices listed below are so different I don't see how much can > be learned from the comparisons: the highest priced current production 135 > manual focus lens vs the highest priced 28 to 50 vs a Canon 50/1.8 that often > sells for $50 or even less here in the US. The caps on the Leica lenses you > tested cost more than the Canon lens. BTW the Canon 50/1.4 FD generally has a > better reputation than the 50/1.8 FD, which was Canon's least expensive 50 mm > SLR optic in FD mount. snip