Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961005114152.56ff5ee0@postoffice3.mail.cornell.edu> Charles E. Love wrote: > I took a course at the Leica School some years ago, and one of the > teachers, > in answer to this sort of question, said that Nikon and Canon produce > some > excellent lenses, and they can produce lenses as good as Leica's if > they are > committed to spending the money. In what you say, the case is made: on > the > complex flagship teles that pros need, Nikon and Canon do spend the > money. > On a 50 mm. low-end lens, they don't--so you get a low-quality, poorly > built > piece. Others fit somewhere in between. Of course, in all this, as you > say, you have to make allowances for economy of scale (I don't expect > Nikon > sells a whole lot of 400 2.8's, so prices get closer). Actually I understand they sell more 400mm f2.8s than anyone else. And I can't agree with your description of a Nikon 50mm as "low-quality, poorly built", I have a 50mm f2 which I bought new in 1975 (very first of the AI lenses) and it's perfect mechanically and still as good optically as it ever was. I also have a mid 60s 50mm f1.4, which is good optically if a little sloppy now (though aren't we all after 30 years?). The low cost of these is mostly due to the *vast* numbers produced. Of course these days the 50mm is a specialist lens, how many new bodies (of *all* camera makes) are bought with that, rather than a zoom? Personally I think a zoom lens belongs on a movie camera and nowhere else (well, OK, I use a 28-50 and 80-200 as back-up)... dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk | "The loss of an old man david@cassandra.compulink.co.uk | is like the destruction Kilburn, London, England. | of a library"