Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 9/26/02 6:40:40 PM, dante@umich.edu writes: << Sorry I started this thread. I didn't think of the conflict of interest issue at all (really, Leica is adopting Puts' viewpoint, which is not really a conflict). 1. Leica must really have a problem with the "older-is-better" crowd, since the booklet explicitly talks about how bad some of the older lenses are compared to the new. The fact that this appears in a Leica publication is pretty significant. >> I don't know.....maybe they're trying to sell new lenses and since the old lenses tend to be indestructible (and therefore still in circulation) they need to create a "need" to buy new ones. I suspect that a problem for a company that makes quality product is that without built-in obsolesence you potentially lower your profit margin. I still think that the "lesser quality lense" must equal "bad" equation is strange to me. I look at some of the tech data and mtf charts and my head spins. I'm kinda a luddite in that way. But I do know that some of the older lenses have a certain quality to them that the ultra ASPH lenses don't. Especially if one is shooting old emulsion type film and printing on old emulsion (black and white) enlarging paper. For me, the goodness or badness of a lense relates to what it is that I'm trying to acheive. I have a VERY old r-3cam, pierre angenieux 45-90mm 2.8 zoom. I'm sure, compared to newer lenses, it's technical acheivements are suspect. But it delivers a sort-of Alice in Wonderland type of (or maybe since it's French a sort of valery larbaud enfantines)look that is slightly softer and lower contrast than modern leica lenses but that serves me and the type of stuff I like to shoot, very well. I wouldn't trade it for the world. - -kim - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html