Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 27 May 1996, Eric Welch wrote: > We had a very long, extremely heated (thanks to a couple of non-Leica types) > discussion on Compuserve about these lenses that ran for about three months > this spring. Those lense are crap. They are made by some nobody > manufacturer, and Adorama is counting on people thinking they will be good > because they fit on a Leica. Nothing could be further from the truth. They > are not worth owning, from what the people who said they had seen them > working were saying. You'd be better spending an extra $400 or so and > getting a used 21. You only buy a lens like that once (or twice) in a > lifetime. Do it right. That's interesting: in the April `96 edition of Popular Photography, both lenses were reviewed and were given quite high praise: PP said that they would perform better than "most" lenses in their class and the SQF data looked pretty good. Did the posters have any explanation for the discrepancy? Gary Toop