Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
I will be reposting this as long as aomeone write
a answer. And if someone thinks about killfile,
I will dig out from there and shout and be ghastly :-)
Seriously: Doesn't anyone have anything to add?
Better discuss about cowshit?
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net>
To: "Leica Users Group" <leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: Summitar, Elmar, Jupiter
> Hello friends!
> I recently tested these three lenses:
> Coated Summitar 2/50 collapsible
> Coated Industar 22 3.5/50 collapsible (is this a Elmar copy?)
> Coated Jupiter 3 1.5/50 - Sonnar copy
>
> Results are somewhat strange for me:
>
> At f/2 Jupiter was way ahead of Summitar
> At f/4 Industar/Elmar outperformed (wide open!) both
> Jupiter and Summitar, Jupiter took second place.
> At f/5.6 all lenses performed equally well
> At f/8 Summitar was best, Jupiter and Industar were worse,
> but still acceptable quality
>
> At similar scale, Jupiter 12 (2.8/35, recent production)
> outperformed all these lenses from f/4 up to f/8
>
> Please comment this. I hope both Marc Small and Erwin Puts
> will have something to say about optical qualities of these lenses.
>
>
> St.
> (Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
> http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
>
>