RE: [Leica] LUG, Leica culture, lens testing and No BS

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

I think we are saying the same thing.  I agree it was a dog, but my point is
that it sold even if it tested lousy.  People wanted the convenience of a
zoom.  So while testing had its place, and this lens tested as a poor
performer, it still made its way into the PJ world.  Not everyone wanted a
perfectly razor sharp and clear photo, sometimes they just wanted the photo.

Peter K

- -----Original Message-----
From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 10:10 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] LUG, Leica culture, lens testing and No BS


Does anyone
remembers the Nikkor 38-76mm zoom? The one Nikon apologized about because it
was not a sharp optic.  It tested lousy.  But still sold in large numbers to
many PJs and others in the 60s because it offered something they wanted, a
short zoom! Even if it was not as tack sharp as say the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor,
they found it usable.

- -----

Peter - While I agree with some of what you said in this post about less
than optimal equipment meeting people's needs for certain purposes, I really
have to say you're way off on this lens. This lens was a DOG. Woof! Woof! A
coke bottle in a zoom housing. It mostly sold to "amateurs" who wanted a
Nikon, wanted a short zoom, and didn't know the difference. PJs who bought
and used did so at the time because they needed a short zoom and there was
no alternative. As soon as there was an alternative, this turkey was
history, and really sad history at that. And, yes, I owned one - and it was
a bit like having a zoom with a non-removal "soft" filter on it!

B. D.