[Leica] Re:Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone else

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

They may be urban legend or rural legend but the word was out in the 70's
that the sample variation of Nikon enlarger glass was totally consistent
while the variation of the Schneider glass was highly varied and
untrustworthy. Hence my acquiring a set of Nikon enlarging glass over those
years where I liked the way the Schneider looked better.
I never knew anyone bringing back a Nikon camera or enlarger lens because of
variability issues by the way. I blithely used every of the tens of nikon
glass I had with total confidence never thinking I might have gotten a
"lemon". I don't think ANY of my Nikon lenses were lemons and new of no
photographer in Portland that ever did I knew about a dozen pro
photographers in Portland before the internet. I've had about 40 of them
just got rid of a few with my move out here. Most are still back in Portland
though. I'd love to have them back.


Mark William Rabiner



> From: Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:06:56 -0800
> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone
> else
> 
> At 4:14 PM +0000 2/5/09, Frank Dernie wrote:
>> Hi Seth,
>> If the part is correctly manufactured to the drawing it is the
>> design which determines the reliability, quality and longevity, not
>> the place of manufacture. Nowadays machines are generally
>> sufficiently accurate to produce parts which need no or minimal
>> selective assembly. If items are properly inspected there should be
>> no concern.
>> FWIW the Nikon lenses of the 70s were notoriously variable from
>> sample to sample.
>> Frank
>> 
> 
> I fully agree with all of that. The last part, about Nikon having
> very large sample variations is most definitely true. In the late
> 70's I switched from Konica to Nikon for my reflex needs, and was
> astounded how much variation there was. The Konica lenses had been
> far more consistent. Their mechanical quality was almost always
> inferior to that of the Nikon's, but their optical quality was right
> up there and often superior, and much more consistent.
> 
> I was fortunate in having camera stores here in Vancouver that would
> have large stocks and would let me try lenses before committing to
> one. The more exotic lenses were somewhat less variable, but higher
> volume ones were often a trial. I think I went through about 6 35-105
> zooms before I found one that was good. All the rest had extreme
> decentering problems.
> 
> The 43-86 that Len referred to went through a couple of generations;
> the last one was almost decent but it came out not long before the
> 35-105 more or less replaced it, and it also suffered from great
> variability. The early ones didn't vary; they were all terrible. I
> definitely prefer most dogs.
> 
> -- 
> 
>     *            Henning J. Wulff
>    /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>   /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>   |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information