Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: KE-7
From: joelct at singnet.com.sg (Joseph Low)
Date: Tue Apr 8 01:44:22 2008
References: <1207540904.47f99ca8b82b9@panthermail.uwm.edu><BAY113-F35D61C0A8DC047EE8349DD8CF30@phx.gbl> <200804072038.m37Kcp3O079177@server1.waverley.reid.org>

I have always respected the USA MILSPEC on equipment made in the USA - ditto
UL listed equipment - never regretted this - especially on high end
amplifiers, speakers etc - ditto home appliances majority of which alas are
now made outside the USA - very disappointing

So I will concur with Marc on his observation

Joseph / Singapore

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Marc
James Small
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April, 2008 4:29 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: KE-7

At 04:14 PM 4/7/2008, Vick Ko wrote:
 >
 >Also, I understand that the 50/2 Elcan is not a great performer too, so no
 >redeeming value to buy-and-try the lens.

Do not overstate.  The US military had standards 
required under the contract.  The then-current 
second-generation 2/50 Summicron exceeded these 
requirements, so Leitz Midland designed a lens 
suitable to meet the contract.  I have never used 
a 2/50 Elcan but others on this List have done 
so.  I understand that it is a pretty good lens in all regards.

Marc


msmall@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!



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



Replies: Reply from vick.ko at sympatico.ca (Vick Ko) ([Leica] Re: KE-7)
In reply to: Message from amr3 at uwm.edu (amr3@uwm.edu) ([Leica] Re: KE-7)
Message from vick.ko at sympatico.ca (Vick Ko) ([Leica] Re: KE-7)
Message from marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small) ([Leica] Re: KE-7)