Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:14 AM 9/18/98 +0200, you wrote: >If they did not test the newer 180/2.8 APO than it is more likely Leica's >fault for not supplying it to them and giving an old 180/3.4 instead. It >is more a question of, again (did you notice the pattern...), bad >marketing on their behalf. Could be, but I know what the new Nikkor can do, and what the Apo Telyt (3.4) can do, and they are not comparable. The Apo Telyt is a freak of nature from the 70s. But be that as it may, another showing of their lack of knowledge is that 3.4 is not much slower in any case, and if they tested the T-stop on the Apo Telyt, they'd find the light transmission is so efficient that it makes it very close to the equivalent of a 2.8 lens. So no significant speed difference. This is a well established fact about this lens since the 70s. On the other hand, Leica may have not had a model available when this test was done. Did they give a date? This is a very news lens (180 Apo 2.8), so that might be a reason. In the end, I really don't put much credence in magazine lens tests, because they aren't lens manufacturers, they don't know the intent of the manufacturer (with Erwin P. being a notable exception in this area) and so how can they possibly test a lens for the target points of any given lens? So maybe I shouldn't get my shorts in a knot about them, eh? - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!