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 04:01 PM 5/27/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Mon, 27 May 1996, Richard W. Hemingway wrote: > >> > 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 > > Of course not!!!!! Surely it is possible to wonder why their >tests showed the lens to be OK/good - a finding which seems to be consistent >with others reported in the LHSA newsletter according to Curt Miller - >when some users have found them to be crap. _Many_ things could explain >the discrepancy, one of which could of course be that PP is unreliable. > >I hope you don't leap off of cliffs the way you leap to conclusions! <g> > >Gary Toop > SPLAT! Dick Hemingway Norman, OK