[Leica] are the new japanese offerings a challenge to Leica?

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

I am about to post the testresults of the Ricoh GR 21, the Cosina 25 and
the Hexanon 2,4/50 and 1,2/60

A general introduction and an historical review might be interesting.
In the thirties as we all know, the two firms competing for the optical
Olympus were Zeiss and Leitz. They used genius, elaborate manual design
procedures, and exquisite mechanical mounts to produce the first golden age
of lens design.
In the fifties and sixties, Canon and Nikon joined the competition and the
four produced the second golden age and in doing so reached a design and
performance platform early in the seventies. Again, superior engineering,
optical cunning and daring designs gave us lenses whose performance is
still excellent.
Then with the plateau reached two trends combined: optical design became
automated and the independent lens manufacturers produced low cost
alternatives to the prestigeous firms.
The reactions were different. Canon and Nikon followed a strategy to
produce two series of lenses,one lower cost, one high cost.   Zeiss and
Leica did not want to go that direction, and insisted on building only
lenses as good as possibly could be (in their view at least). Contax tried
to blend the Yashica and Zeiss lenses as a low cost and high quality pair,
but that failed. Contax users wanted simply the best AKA Zeiss. So Zeiss
shifted most of the lens production to Asia to lower cost and keep high
quality. For Zeiss ( as a mega business) production of camera lenses is a
peanut in the company books, so that move makes sense.
Leica does not have this alternative, so their strategy is to design and
built the best lenses ever at whatever cost. But there is a limit to image
quality to be perceived and appreciated, as the discussions on this list
amply document.
In a positive way then the new Cosina and Konica and Ricoh lenses can be
interpreted as an independent offering of low(er) cost alternatives to the
Leica lenses (in some cases niche filling as the 2,5/75 shows). This bodes
well for Leica. More people will buy their bodies and eventually will have
a mix of Leica and other lenses.
The important fact is that the rangefinder camera (once pronounced dead)
gets ever more life injections. And when people start to appreciate the
imagery possible with Leica lenses, they will buy into this lens line.
General remarks on the optical quality:
all four lenses to be reviewed  offer surprisingly  good image quality,
some even outstandingly so.
The designers cearly had good examples to work from and could stand on the
shoulders of many generations of good designers. And the very good
opticaldesign programs of today also are a bonus. Generally these lenses
perform as second generation Leica lenses from the period 1960 to 1975.
Being of lower cost there are of course minor and sometimes major
deficiencies. Decentring is a major one, as is flare, particularly
spillover of light at black/white bounderies of very small object details.
If you use elaborate testing equipment,you will note overall a higher
aberration content than in the equivalent Leica lenses. The performance in
the field is the weak point here. Also the mechanical mounts are not
machined or assembled as well as the Leica ones, but then here Leica is
worldleader.
For many picture taking situations and moderate demands these Japanese
lenses are very good indeed and are worthy of close scrutinity by
interested buyers/users.
For all the details you have to wait o couple of days.


Erwin