Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc - While you're technically correct that a "copy," assuming that it is an exact copy, cannot be better than the original, what we all take to be a "copy," or rip-off if you will, certainly can be better than the original if the rip-off artists improve on the original. For a hypothetical example, suppose Nikon had copied the Sonnar 50 1.5 exactly, and then given it a superior coating to that of the original. We'd still call it a copy, but it might well be superior...Further, if two products are, in fact, precisely the same, but one costs $300 and one costs $15, isn't it fair to call the $15 product superior to the $300 product? :-) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Marc James Small Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 4:44 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: RE: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 chrome lens (non-Serenar). At 09:11 AM 7/29/99 +700, David Young wrote: >It is my understanding that the Nikkor >lenses are copies of the Carl Zeiss optics and that they are as good as the >Zeiss lenses if not superior. I really do not want us to wander off into this minefield again, but a copy, by definition, can never be superior to the original. "As good as", arguably, but never "better". The original Nikkor lenses are pretty much direct thefts of the superb Zeiss Contax lens line. And they were dirt, dirt, dirt cheap: some of these puppies sold for as little as $15 in Tokyo when a German Zeiss lens, if it could be had at all, would sell for over $300. The success of Nikon and Canon were based on producing well-made cameras and good lenses for a fraction of what the Leitz and Zeiss originals cost. Then, as now, pecunia omnia vincit in the marketplace. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!