Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc, I am not familiar with "Kingslake's analysis of the design". What is it? And you would argue, I suppose, the the Soviets were in a better moral position, war booty and all that. OTOH, Canon and Nikkon may have made their reputation on stolen designs, but have gone far beyond, certainly providing quality optics whose use has benefitted many photographers and keeping their Teutonic rival on their toes! (putting them in the fire, actually). The Soviets, on the other hand just kept churning out the same designs.... Maybe some minor improvements on the wide angle side. Adam >No. Roger and I have FAXed each other on this and related points. >That is his experience; it isn't mine, nor, for that matter, is it consistent >with Kingslake's analysis of the design. The 1.4/50 Nikkor is, of course, >more than a "clone": it is an outright theft of the Zeiss design, used >unlawfully but with the permission of the Allied occupation authorities >which was supposed to make it "all right". Of course, it does no such >thing, morally: a theft is a theft, and a thief is a thief. Canon and >Nikon built their reputations on larcened goods. >Marc