Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:50 PM 7/12/03 -0400, Seth Rosner wrote: >........The only "other optical factor" where the Elmar is better, according >to Puts, is a very slight (0.2 stop) difference in vignetting; in either >lens, 0.7 and 0.9 stop represent very low vignetting indeed. Not only does >Puts remark on the better contrast of the Tele-Elmar, he adds that "This >lens is often qualified as to be of apo quality." Which is why I and others >consider it to be optically very close indeed to the APO-Telyt, something no >one ever claimed for the 135/4 Elmar until your post, Marc. Thank you, Seth, for acknowleding the quality of Erwin as an authority. I rest with his words: your interpretation is rather, well, odd, but others can make their own determination as to just how regards these two lenses. >As to the Zeiss 135/4 Sonnar, I never commented on that lens which I am >certain was and is a fine optic. In fact, Puts says of the Tele-Elmar that >"With this lens Leitz equalled and in some areas surpassed the Zeiss Sonnar >1:4/135mm." My negative comment was directed at the Jupiter with which I >confess no personal experience whatever. Uh, Seth? Why are you commenting on the qualities of a lens you have never used? Isn't this, well, foolish? As they say, "try one: you might like it!" Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html