Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Which ones don't? It is true that Minolta makes a slew of budget minded consumer oriented lenses (as do Nikon and Canon etc.), but their "serious" lenses (such as the 100/2.8 macro, the 200/2.8 APO, all their 50s, their 85/1.4 etc., etc.) are excellent lenses, and if they are less than Leica equivalents, it will only be apparent under the most exacting test conditions. For instance, part from it propensity to flare (but manageble with my 100% viewfinder in my 9), I can't distinguish my Minolta 50 from my 50 Summilux-M. In fact, I have some test pics taklen with my minolta 50, my Summilux 50 and my DR 50. I will rescan them using Vuescan to try and get identical scans, and post them.. you pick out the Minolta, if you can. Give me a day or two to find the negatives. Dan C. At 05:00 PM 22-08-00 +0200, Axel Schwieker wrote: >Hi Dan, > >i must admit that I agree with most of what you say. I will not state >that the Minolta guys are to dumb to produce Leica quality glass. It's >obvious that they can do so (at least in some cases) and the 24 mm >should be prove enough. I did however mean that it's usually not their >business to produce lenses of such a high quality and in consequence, >most of their lenses don't reach Leica quality. > >Axel > >