Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> >Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 09:30:45 -0500 >Subject: Re: New and Improved? > >At 06:53 AM 11/2/96 -0500, Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A. wrote: > >>My dad stuck his 12th ed. Leica Manual in my hand when I was still a young >>boy in the '50s and '60s and said 'read.' He never spoke of any 'glow' from >>his Leica or Zeiss glass. > >This displays a complete ignorance of what Berek was setting out to >accomplish. ZEISS has always designed for maximum optical performance, so >there is NO "Zeiss glow". Berek, realizing his design resources were so >limited, opted for a rather simple optical trick to make the lenses produce >a final image with a more striking effect than would otherwise be the case. >This explains why Leitz lenses have historically tested poorly. > >It's not a matter of epic import, but it does explain why Leica lenses are >so renowned for optical performance but perform so poorly on the test-bench. > >Marc > >msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! > Look through this post again, thorough. Zeiss has designed for maximum optical performance... Leica are renowned for optical performance... What is the *real* difference? What you are talking about - sure this is not true. /Magnus