Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 06:53 AM 2/11/96 -0500, Curt wrote:
>Lens quality - I've never put my 2 cents in on this one but today's posting
>was the 'straw...' Someone was responding to the question of another as to
>whether the current 90/2.8 was an improvement over the older 90/2.8. [snip]
>I've been reading and doing the same for well over 30 years and, quite frankly,
>all the issues about lens testing, glow, et al seem rather arcane and
>senseless. This glass is as good as it needs to be and always was. And,
>no, I don't think I'm missing something here that only someone else could
>understand.
There is a problem with the above analysis, which I've alluded to it in
another post. There is a term think Psycholigists use, namely "cognative
dissonance" (forgive my spelling!) that I think applies here. I own a
Minolta 50/1.4 autofocus lens that cost me 179 bucks new. I paid over 1000
for my used 50/1.4 summilux for my Leica. You better believe that I'm going
to try to find something that makes the leica lens worth having over the
cheap Minolta. And If I can't find it in my pictures, then I'm going to
photograph wall charts and look for a differance there. And if I can't find
it there, I'm going to talk about how the "lenses are very similar, but
there's a nice 'warm fuzzy glow' coming from the Leica pictures" thats
missing from the Minolta. I'm going to somehow, somewhere find anything I
can to convince myself that I wasn't taken for a ride when I bought my Leica
lens.
In the end, hopefully, I won't become obsessed with looking for advantages
for the Leica, and will find time to simply take pictures with it. I guess
this is the point you are making.
_______________________________________________
Dan Cardish <dcardish@spherenet.com>
<http://www.spherenet.com/dcardish/photo.htm>