Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/03

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

Subject: Re: Leica-Users List Digest V1 #245
From: (Magnus Ostvall)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:14:07 +0100

>From: Marc James Small <>
>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.
>  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.