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, Richard W. Hemingway wrote: > > 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 > > > > > Do you believe everything PP has to say about Leica????? Or competition > with them??? > > Dick Hemingway > Norman, OK Of course not!!!!! Surely it is possible to wonder why their tests showed the lens to be OK/good - a finding which seems to be consistent with others reported in the LHSA newsletter according to Curt Miller - when some users have found them to be crap. _Many_ things could explain the discrepancy, one of which could of course be that PP is unreliable. I hope you don't leap off of cliffs the way you leap to conclusions! <g> Gary Toop