Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/03

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

Subject: Vs: Vs: [Leica] Leica Users digest V19 #272
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:51:01 +0200

I´m so old I remember that the Japanese lenses were held to be of high resolution and low contrast type - and even some Canon lenses having higher contrast "like Leica". So these hypotheses are just - hypotheses.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen

- -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: SthRosner@aol.com <SthRosner@aol.com>
Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Päivä: 03. huhtikuuta 2001 22:34
Aihe: Re: Vs: [Leica] Leica Users digest V19 #272


Mr. Zeitlin:

The reasons set forth in the Leica Lenses booklet are entirely consistent 
with the conclusions hypothesized by Geoffrey Crawley that I referred to 
recently, namely that Leitz had decided to follow the Japanese in going for 
higher contrast, believing that they were "following the market." Remember 
too that the lens cross-sections published by Leitz and Leica since forever 
are not the true cross-sections of their lenses, something I pointed out to 
Jim Lager when I first saw his lens book.  LaK 9