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 > Stanislaw, The reason is that not very many people on the LUG use these lens. And, photographers doing unscientific lens tests is in disrepute. Steve Annapolis > >> 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 >> >> >