Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 27 May 1996, Marc James Small wrote: > C'mon, Gary! > > Adorama is one of Pop's largest advertisers: is the positive test result > any surprise? > > The lenses will be, at best, mediocre. Buy Leica, buy an old Canon, buy a > Russar -- but these will be, I suspect, distinguished only by their lack of > distinction. In answer to Eric's question, the term "class" was my own. PP said something to the effect that these lenses were among the best of their focal-length in 35 mm lenses. Given their relationship to Adorama, PP's comments may be no surprise and I have had reason to doubt the accuracy of their commentary in the past. But the _numbers_ that they obtained through their SQF testing of the lenses, particularly the 21, were also very good and, while I don't think that poor numbers mean much, good numbers seem to suggest that the lenses can at least resolve detail out to the corners pretty well, which is certainly worth something. Are you suggesting that PP fudges their numbers or that, perhaps, they had one of the best examples of an uneven batch sent to them? For what it is worth (perhaps not much!) I would certainly go for the Russian or the Canon lens over the Adorama lens unless I had the opportunity to test the latter against the others. However, the original poster was curious about the quality of the lenses and I think that it is worth noting that PP did produce some numbers on them that look good. Gary