Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/05

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Nomenclature
From: Eric Welch <>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 21:16:33 -0500

At 03:46 PM 6/5/98 -0800, you wrote:

>In practice it means (for most lenses) that the white dot has much less
>color fringing in an APO lens than in the same non-APO lens. From what I
>recall about R lenses there are a couple of APOs from Leica that reputedly
>are truly of the R people can undoubtedly shed some
>light on that point.

Yes, Leica's definition of APO is much more stringent than most other
companies out there that throw the term around. (Note: Ziess is not one of
them). Their APO leneses have to meet the definition across the whole film
plane, and at all or most focusing distances. They are all, as far as I've
seen superb lenses in a class of their own. I hear the Zeiss 300 2.8 Tele
APO Tessar is a tad better than the 280 2.8, but not by much! The Canon 300
2.8 is right between them. With Nikon trailing behind (and some of their
techs will claim it's APO as well).
- --

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO

 Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.