Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:46 PM 7/29/99 -0000, BD Colen wrote: >Marc - While you're technically correct that a "copy," assuming that it is >an exact copy, cannot be better than the original, what we all take to be a >"copy," or rip-off if you will, certainly can be better than the original if >the rip-off artists improve on the original. For a hypothetical example, >suppose Nikon had copied the Sonnar 50 1.5 exactly, and then given it a >superior coating to that of the original. We'd still call it a copy, but it >might well be superior...Further, if two products are, in fact, precisely >the same, but one costs $300 and one costs $15, isn't it fair to call the >$15 product superior to the $300 product? :-) Well, since you mention it, Nikon and Canon also ripped off Zeiss's patented coating process -- even Leitz didn't sink to that level! You are, of course, correct, in saying that a well-constructed copy can be better than a poorly-made original. However, the Zeiss originals were extremely well made lenses and were, in fact, superior to the Nikon and Canon lenses in one important regard, that of the glasses used. (The initial production by Canon and Nikon did use Schott glass imported during the War by submarine, but this had run out by the early '50's, and the Japanese struggled a bit to establish domestic supplies of optical glass.) The German lenses were made from a broader range of optical glasses and, Postwar, Schott was breaking new ground in developing new melds. The Japanese were unable to compete in this and, for that matter, still allow most research in this to be done in Germany or the US. (Hoya and Zeiss have an arrangement whereby Hoya references some of its production to the Schott catalogue, for instance: Hoya is pouring Zeiss glass, under license.) Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!