Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/21

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: an objective evaluation of leica M lenses and the noctilux
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:26:12 -0500

At 04:15 AM 4/22/98 +0200, you wrote:

>Yes, I do think that some Leica lenses are optically overvalued.For
>instance in the M system : noctilux (oops !), summilux 50, summicron
>90,tele-elmar.All these lenses have an old optical design while films have
>been hugely improved. But Leica is now on the road again with marvelous

These lenses were and are oustanding, for their day. Sure the Noctilux
doesn't fit one magazine's criterion, but you have to ask yourself if they
are testing for the right things. I dare say Leica has a lot more
sophisticated equipment to test with, but more important, have the inside
scoop on why the designed it the way they did.

Plus, there are rumors since two Photokinas ago that the Noctilux will be
replaced soon, like maybe even this current Photokina. They improved it a
while back, but not optically. 

But hundreds of testimonies of how great that lens is makes a lot more
impact than some magazine review. Leica does have a motivation to protect
its image, but they are THE MOST honest company when it comes to lens
performance I have ever seen. They will tell you their 35 Summilux R
vignette's a bit wide open. But Nikon won't.

Ask also what motivations a magazine has to be "honest" about a company
that doesn't do a lot of advertising with them compared to one that does.
(Peterson's Photographic or Pop Photo).
==========

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

I exist as I am - that is enough.

- - Walt Whitman