Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/02/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Jean-Philippe Guilbaud wrote:
>
>I have these two at the same time and test at the same time.
>I can not find anything different on the EPR slides...
>
>
>> Eric Welch wrote:
>>
>> >I was making the point that like the Canada vs. Wetzlar(Solms) debate, a lot
>> >of people worry
>> >about something that doesn't matter.
>>
>> I do not agree with You. I've got a Summicron 50 f/2 Leitz Canada : no good
>> at all !!! The old one I had was made in Germany and astonishingly good.
>> Regards.
>> ---------
>> Jean-Philippe GUILBAUD
Just to add fat to the fire and since I have a small but pronounced
mischievous streak: I have an older Canadian Tele-Elmarit and a more recent
Wetzlar version. I have come to prefer the Canadian version. It is
EXTREMELY hard to tell them apart but it does tend to give me a higher
percentage of gems than the Wetzlar. The separation in the lower values
would seem to be the only "loupable" difference.
For B/W work, they are essentially identical. I certainly would
never turn my nose up at a Canadian lens purely for its origins.
I also have the new E46 Wetzlar version with the sliding hood but it's new,
in the box. I got it by mistake (long story) and I'm keeping it unused as a
"trader" so I have not compared it to the others.
I can't work out which version is the "fat" one that every one
mentions. Any clues?
Jae