Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc- Well, so much for that theory. They must know something we don't! Obviously, there must be a design or performance based reason- Leica doesn't seem to (well very often, at least) do something unless there is a reason, typically to improve performance. Maybe a lens guru like Erwin might weigh in here with some ideas... after all, he seems to have a really good grasp of what these lenses do! Dan - ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Comments on Russar 5,6/20 mm please....and Retro-Focus > At 03:47 PM 9/2/1999 -0400, Dan Post wrote: > >could they be taking the fact that the retro focus doesn't protrude so far > >into the body? After finding that the 80-200 / 4,5 Vario-Elmar stuck out too > >far in the back to go on my SL, I could well understand if they did it to > >make the metering more accurate on a M lens? > > Dan and I are discussing why Leica has chosen retrofocus designs on their > later wide-angles, something I was unaware of until that deep well of > knowledge, Eric Welch, pointed me towards it some years back. > > My Russar meters with my M6, and it is not a retrofocus design. My > Orion-15 meters with my M6, and it is not a retrofocus design. My 2.8/35 > Jupiter-12 meters with my M6, and it is not a retrofocus design. > > Also ich weiss ist nicht. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >