Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/13

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

Subject: [Leica] Why a digital M
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Tue Jul 13 11:55:58 2004

With all due respect, Walker, your Summar from the 30s may still be
mechanically sound - as, btw, are many Nikon lenses from the 60s - but
your Summar from the 30s is an optical joke compared to today's Leica
lenses, or even today's Cosina lenses. So that fact that it's still
around doesn't mean that, objectively, it should be. If you use it and
enjoy it, more power to you, but please don't try to argue that it's
anything approaching a first, or even second class lens by modern
optical standards.

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Walker Smith
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:16 PM
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] Why a digital M


the aluminum barreled lenses
that Nikon sold in the sixties are just plain loose and sloppy now. Even
my Summar from the 1930's is still useable today in the same conditions
it was good for in the thirties. An excellent point. Quality costs.
There's simply no getting around it. I own a couple of Leica lens (35mm
& 50mm Elmars) that pre-date the 
1933 and up serial number range. They are both well-used and still as
tight and smooth as one could wish for. That sort of quality comes at a
price.


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from doubs43 at cox.net (Walker Smith) ([Leica] Why a digital M)