Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]------ Forwarded Article <4nnavf$lpu@due.unit.no> ------ From birkus@phys.unit.no (Christophe Birkeland) I felt like sharing with you some ratings given by Chasseur d'Images, one of the better photography magazines around. To help you understand the ratings, these are the three criteria measured by CI: * Optical quality * Price/Quality ratio * CI 'Love-rate': this last ratio is very sunjective, but still gives a nice summary of the lens. The ratings for LEICA M were listed in CI 183, May 96: -Tele-Elmarit: 90/2.8: *****/**/*** -Tele-Elmar 135/4: ***/*/* -Elmarit: 28/2.8 ****/**/**** -Summilux 75/1.4 ****/**/*** You'll notice that all lenses have a poor quality price ratio, not surprising considering the price of these jewels :-) They have all excellent optical quality, except the 135mm, where CI writes (translated freely): 'The optical quality is very good, but not extraordinary. Not surprising as it has an old construction. With such a high price, Leica should have used APO-glass, if not for any other reason, just to make it as outstanding as the other M lenses.' The reason CI doesn't like this lens is because 135mm is not suited to use on a rangefinder camera (difficult to compose, especially on a moving subject). CI can only recommend this lens to LEICA M lovers who absolutely need the 135mm focal length. I hope this is of some interest to all you photomaniacs out there :-) Regards -christophe ------ End of Forwarded Article