Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --=====================_581687272==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Now I know no one now cares about all of this. Especially LUG folks. So if you don't want to read my ramblings, push delete now. I have been a subscriber to Shutterbug since the very beginning. I still have the first year's issues. Newspaper, really yellow now. And have never let my subscription lapse. I have gained an enormous amount of good information from the publication. Not in the articles. From the Ads and other misc. info. My Hasselblad rep told me, at least a year ago, that Zeiss was going to stop making Hasselblad projectors and if I wanted one, I should get one now. He also said that I should look for a used projector with a 150mm lens because 150mm projector lenses were completely un-available. And none were going to be made. I looked through Shutterbug each month and over a period of a few months, found two, like new, projectors with 150mm lenses (and other lenses) for about 60% of new net price. I snagged them. Several years ago, when Schneider's APO Symmar HM large format lenses were fairly new, I wanted a 120mm APO Symmar HM and hunted for a used lens. I was laughed at by everyone I called. "Used... you've got to be kidding!" But there it was, in Shutterbug, a few months later. LN for $900. I have a 48"x60" landscape print made from a Velvia transparency photographed with this lens that is mind bogglingly sharp. I have read many of Bob Shell's editorials and have always thought that he was extremely knowledgeable about the photographic industry. I know he is a genuinely nice guy and very well respected. Actually, my whole point about the Shutterbug article on CB lenses was that Bob offered nothing past "they are not T* coated lenses." It would have been nice to see, in print, something akin to what Bob wrote below. Especially since I was holding a CB lens dutifully stamped T* in my right hand and the Shutterbug article in my left hand. I queried my local Hasselblad rep (who I know personally quite well and has always given me advanced inside information about what is going on at Hasselblad and told me what is good as well as what is not as good) who said the following. "The CB lenses are a bargain set of lenses, some have simpler, cheaper to manufacture optical designs, and none have the ability to disengage the shutter for use on an F camera. But the T* coating is a T* coating because if Hasselblad sold "new" lenses that were more prone to flare than other and older Hasselblad lenses, they would never hear the last of it. Most people never make prints larger than 16x20 (16x16) and the optical performance of the CB lenses would be equal to all other lenses in this domain. So for the 500 series user, the CB lenses are a bargain, and for all but the most excruciatingly exacting applications, are equal to all other equivalent focal length lenses." I understand Bob's position since he was told, what he was told, by someone from Zeiss. I personally would have to believe that as well, depending upon who the Zeiss person was, of course. I know that Bob received an enormous amount of flak from that article and he is doing the correct thing - sticking by what he was told. But a more full "explanation" should have been "printed" since visually seeing T* engraved on a lens, and having no "real" explanation to a conflicting article, is a powerful influence and tends to give rise to suspicions. So what is the truth? Actually no one probably cares. But I like dilemmas solved. And until they are, there's an "umbrella of doubt" over the entire debacle. Thanks for your time and bandwidth, Jim (who has no CB lenses) Brick At 10:24 PM 1/24/01 -0500, Maciver2@aol.com wrote: >With respect to Jim Brick's posting re Bob Shell, I thought you might like to >read Bob's response, since he's not on this list: > >" >I'm not on the LUG and don't have time for more lists. The story as he >tells >it is correct. I was told these lenses had a "simplified" coating which was >not the same as the T* used on the other lenses. I have witnesses to the >statement being made by a Zeiss spokesman. He did say it, and I quoted it >in good faith. If he was wrong, then he should admit it, but he stands by >his statement. Since I have not been to the factory to independently verify >what the coating is, I have bowed out of this one. > >Bob " - --=====================_581687272==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> Now I know no one now cares about all of this. Especially LUG folks. So if you don't want to read my ramblings, push delete now.<br> <br> I have been a subscriber to Shutterbug since the very beginning. I still have the first year's issues. Newspaper, really yellow now. And have never let my subscription lapse. I have gained an enormous amount of good information from the publication. Not in the articles. From the Ads and other misc. info.<br> <br> My Hasselblad rep told me, at least a year ago, that Zeiss was going to stop making Hasselblad projectors and if I wanted one, I should get one now. He also said that I should look for a used projector with a 150mm lens because 150mm projector lenses were completely un-available. And none were going to be made. I looked through Shutterbug each month and over a period of a few months, found two, like new, projectors with 150mm lenses (and other lenses) for about 60% of new net price. I snagged them.<br> <br> Several years ago, when Schneider's APO Symmar HM large format lenses were fairly new, I wanted a 120mm APO Symmar HM and hunted for a used lens. I was laughed at by everyone I called. "Used... you've got to be kidding!" But there it was, in Shutterbug, a few months later. LN for $900. I have a 48"x60" landscape print made from a Velvia transparency photographed with this lens that is mind bogglingly sharp.<br> <br> I have read many of Bob Shell's editorials and have always thought that he was extremely knowledgeable about the photographic industry. I know he is a genuinely nice guy and very well respected.<br> <br> Actually, my whole point about the Shutterbug article on CB lenses was that Bob offered nothing past "they are not T* coated lenses." It would have been nice to see, in print, something akin to what Bob wrote below. Especially since I was holding a CB lens dutifully stamped <font color="#FF0000">T*</font> in my right hand and the Shutterbug article in my left hand.<br> <br> I queried my local Hasselblad rep (who I know personally quite well and has always given me advanced inside information about what is going on at Hasselblad and told me what is good as well as what is not as good) who said the following. "The CB lenses are a bargain set of lenses, some have simpler, cheaper to manufacture optical designs, and none have the ability to disengage the shutter for use on an F camera. But the T* coating is a T* coating because if Hasselblad sold "new" lenses that were more prone to flare than other and older Hasselblad lenses, they would never hear the last of it. Most people never make prints larger than 16x20 (16x16) and the optical performance of the CB lenses would be equal to all other lenses in this domain. So for the 500 series user, the CB lenses are a bargain, and for all but the most excruciatingly exacting applications, are equal to all other equivalent focal length lenses."<br> <br> I understand Bob's position since he was told, what he was told, by someone from Zeiss. I personally would have to believe that as well, depending upon who the Zeiss person was, of course. I know that Bob received an enormous amount of flak from that article and he is doing the correct thing - sticking by what he was told. But a more full "explanation" should have been "printed" since visually seeing <font color="#FF0000">T*</font> engraved on a lens, and having no "real" explanation to a conflicting article, is a powerful influence and tends to give rise to suspicions.<br> <br> So what is the truth? Actually no one probably cares. But I like dilemmas solved. And until they are, there's an "umbrella of doubt" over the entire debacle.<br> <br> Thanks for your time and bandwidth,<br> <br> Jim (who has no CB lenses) Brick<br> <br> <br> At 10:24 PM 1/24/01 -0500, Maciver2@aol.com wrote:<br> >With respect to Jim Brick's posting re Bob Shell, I thought you might like to <br> >read Bob's response, since he's not on this list:<br> ><br> >"<br> >I'm not on the LUG and don't have time for more lists. The story as he<br> >tells<br> >it is correct. I was told these lenses had a "simplified" coating which was<br> >not the same as the T* used on the other lenses. I have witnesses to the<br> >statement being made by a Zeiss spokesman. He did say it, and I quoted it<br> >in good faith. If he was wrong, then he should admit it, but he stands by<br> >his statement. Since I have not been to the factory to independently verify<br> >what the coating is, I have bowed out of this one.<br> ><br> >Bob "<br> </html> - --=====================_581687272==_.ALT--