Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello Walt, I am in line with you regarding the Nikkor LTM lenses because I have used some of them to see their performance. Actually, in my book, the Nikkor lenses are as good as the Leica lenses mechanically too. I own quite a few of the Nikkor lenses, let alone the Leica lenses to see. I have not heard much about the Canon lenses though while I have heard and seen with my eyes about the Nikkor lenses. It is my understanding that the Nikkor lenses are copies of the Carl Zeiss optics and that they are as good as the Zeiss lenses if not superior. Do you think the Canon lenses are also as good as or superior to the Leica lenses of the same vintage? The only Canon lenses that I have in LTM are the 135/3.5 black and 50/1.2 with a couple of the Canon bodies. I do love the look and feel of the Nikkor lenses (both black and chrome.) Thanks, David >Peter, Peter....don't fullfill all the negative stereotypes about the >Leica owner......jeez... >and Raymond, the truth, or the closest that you'll ever get on your >highly volatile question, is that Canon and Nikkor lenses in LTM mount >are basically equal to and in most cases superior than their Leica >counterparts...optically....OF THE SAME vintage.... >Your Canon lens, if mechanically and optically OK, is probably better >than an LTM Hektor, probably as good as an elmar, NOT as good as the later >lenses... > >In fact, Optically, the Nikkors and Canons hold up much better...better coatings >and cement, I suppose....mechanically, they're probably not as good as the >Leica lenses.... >Remember, two of the most famous 35mm photogs of all time used Nikkor (Duncan) >and Canon (Smith) lenses on their Leicas... > >Please, if you must attack my post, do it with data, not emotions....I've been >a "leicaphile" for 20+ years, and have used them all....I of course prefer late >M-lenses, but for $100-400, plus mount adaptor, there are some PHENOMENAL 40 >year old lenses, too...just as there were absolute DOGS in Leica's line... > >Expect bargains in Canons and Nikkors with the proliferation of new LTM lenses >out there....try to shoot before you buy, but if not, look over the glass >and mechanics and try to get at least a 12 ex. roll through it ....even >if you "process" only and look at the negs.....not to determine quality, >just to make sure there are no GROSS faults with mount or lens... > >thanks, >Walt > >On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:45:59 -0700 "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" ><peterk@lucent.com> wrote: >> Raymond, >> >> WADR (With all due respect), that's like asking a Mercedes Owner how your >> Toyota stacks up against it. >> >> Peter K >> >> > ---------- >> > From: RayChan[SMTP:ray2chan@singnet.com.sg] >> > Reply To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 8:19 PM >> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> > Subject: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 chrome lens (non-Serenar). >> > >> > I have the above lens and wondered how it compares to Leica LTM lenses of >> > the same era. Hope to hear from you, guys. TIA >> > >> > Raymond >> > > > > >