Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/22[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 12:19 PM 8/22/98 +0200, you wrote: >prices, they don't have to engineer any "economy" lenses into their lineup. That is the case, and the reason for the "error" in that person's thinking. Like it should apply to Leica's competitors that they only have to argue from their few "best" lenses while comparing to Leica's full line. It doesn't shake. Most people buy one system for all their needs, or the M and R in Leica's case. No other camera maker makes as comprehensive a set of lenses that cover so many bases so well - optically. >But as to a blanket statement that they're "optically superior" -- >well,they aren't, and never were.The best lenses of other makers have >always been able to match or exceed the performance of Leica lenses. In Based on what? Popular Photography's tests? David Duncan Douglas' tests in the 50s? >As a conclusion, let me tell you a story. A few months ago, the french >photographer Guy Le Querrec had all his Leica gear stolen.He advertised in >CI writing he wanted a summicron 35, 2nd type with 6 elements.A rumor was That's supposed to prove something? - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch As far as I'm concerned, treachery will sometimes bring loyalty into question.