Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc wrote: >Thanks, Tom, for your most interesting defence of the undefendable. As to >the quality of the optics, the pictures I have seen printed of the 15mm's >performance do not bear out that it is "better" than the Zeiss Hologon. Undefendable???? A strange word coming from an otherwise sometimes (actually, often) logical person. I have used 3 of the 15mm Hologons, 2 of the Leica mount type and one on a Hologon camera. I have one of the 15/4.5 Heliars. The only area in which the Hologons are better are is in the area of distortion, of which the Hologons have none that I can see without more precise instruments. The Heliar has a bit of distortion, but at a level of the 21 Elmarit; hardly a major concern. In the areas of resolution, contrast and flare, the Heliar is definitely better. I would also classify the Heliar as 'better'. Not all that Zeiss hath wrought is the best. Probably Zeiss can make a better 15mm lens for the Leica, but it would cost more; probably a lot more. They just haven't done so, but then most companies, including Cosina, could make a better 15 - at a price. I'm just glad they have made a lens that works as well as it does, which is better than my Hologon, and done it at such a low price. I'm not selling my 21ASPH, or for that matter 15 Nikkor or 35 Apo-Grandagon or others. The Heliar is just a great addition of a focal length that Leica doesn't make, and that has performance of an order that can stand next to Leica lenses, even if it is not quite up to the latest standards. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com