Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:31 AM 5/27/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Mon, 27 May 1996, Eric Welch wrote: > >> We had a very long, extremely heated (thanks to a couple of non-Leica types) >> discussion on Compuserve about these lenses that ran for about three months >> this spring. Those lense are crap. They are made by some nobody >> manufacturer, and Adorama is counting on people thinking they will be good >> because they fit on a Leica. Nothing could be further from the truth. They >> are not worth owning, from what the people who said they had seen them >> working were saying. You'd be better spending an extra $400 or so and >> getting a used 21. You only buy a lens like that once (or twice) in a >> lifetime. Do it right. > > That's interesting: in the April `96 edition of Popular >Photography, both lenses were reviewed and were given quite high praise: >PP said that they would perform better than "most" lenses in their >class and the SQF data looked pretty good. Did the posters have any >explanation for the discrepancy? > >Gary Toop > > Do you believe everything PP has to say about Leica????? Or competition with them??? Dick Hemingway Norman, OK