Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Leica M Lenses, CI ratings [rec.photo.equipment.35mm #18685]
From: sachse@msc.cornell.edu (Wolfgang Sachse)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:36:50 -0400


------ 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