Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<snip>A 35/2 Summicron R and a 50/2 Summicron R. Are the new lenses better than those made 20 years ago ? Absolutely not. <snip> Now my question, what do base your findings on? Testing procedures? Ownership? <snip> They are NOT Minolta lenses and have NOT been redesigned.<snip> Did Leica tell you this? <snip> Four R lenses have been re-designed recently. And they were PREVIOUSLY LEICA LENSES not Minolta lenses. The 19, 28, 50/1.4, and 180/2.8 APO <snip>. Prove it! Because it is labeled Leica does not mean it was not Minolta! Minolta made a damn good 28mm F2.8 lens. Have you taken each lens apart and compared the elements and designs? I know people who have and those that are knowledgable tell me a few were Minolta lenses even though they were labeled otherwise. Maybe soomewhat modified Minolta lenses. Hey the 35-70 is made by Kyocera and the 80-200 F4 by Sigma, yet Sigma does not sell this focal length/F-stop combination under the Sigma label, does that mean the lens is not a Sigma made lens? <snip>The ONLY Minolta lenses are.<snip> That does not mean they are the only lenses Minolta makes. You may be surprised to learn who makes glass/lenses for whom. And unless you are an employee of Leica, don't believe everything you hear. Even then, I would not. <snip> The only Minolta candidate for "actual redesign" would be the 24. Don't hold your breath because the current, old, Minolta, 24/2.8 R lens is a fine performer. Been around since 1974. <snip> So what does this mean? Do you honestly think a company leave tooling in place whitout change for 25 years? I don't think so. Newer improve tooling WILL produce better lenses, even older designs. Enjoy your system. You don't need to justify it.