Re: [Leica] filter usage + lens tests

[Lucien <lucien@ubi.edu>]

Peter,

If I were you, I'll stop on this subject. It's embarrassing.
Everybody makes mistakes  (first of all, I do), 
but here, it's to obvious you don't know what you're talking about. 
You are getting it all mixed up. 
Tough, there are enough publications on the topic out there
and knowledgeable and trustworthy Lugers here.

Please stay on safer grounds. (off topics like beer, Y2K, telex and PCs)  
;-) 

And don't try to put on a martyred look, this is not a conspiracy
against you. Or a matter of blasphemy. (see quote below)
;-)

By the way, if you were just kidding, you forgot a lot of smileys.
:-)

Take care,

Lucien


Peter Kotsinadelis wrote:

> Prove it!  Because it is labeled Leica does not mean it was not Minolta!
> Minolta made a damn good 28mm F2.8 lens.  Have you taken each lens apart and
> compared the elements and designs?  I know people who have and those that
> are knowledgable tell me a few were Minolta lenses even though they were
> labeled otherwise.  Maybe soomewhat modified Minolta lenses.
> Hey the 35-70 is made by Kyocera and the 80-200 F4 by Sigma, yet Sigma does
> not sell this focal length/F-stop combination under the Sigma label, does
> that mean the lens is not a Sigma made lens?

> That does not mean they are the only lenses Minolta makes.  You may be
> surprised to learn who makes glass/lenses for whom.  And unless you are an
> employee of Leica, don't believe everything you hear.  Even then, I would
> not.

> So what does this mean?  Do you honestly think a company leave tooling in
> place whitout change for 25 years?  I don't think so.  Newer improve tooling
> WILL produce better lenses, even older designs.

Peter Kotsinadelis also wrote in the past:

> Only "Opinions" that advocate Leica cameras and lenses are of 
> the liking to this group.
> Anything else is blasphemy.  So much for open-mindedness.