Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]dominique pellissier wrote: > Next time I'll try a practical comparison between my 2/35 non asph and the > tri-elmar. > But, if we compare MTF tests published by Leica, between the 35 asph and the > tri-elmar at a focal length of 35 mm, and both the 2 lenses at 5.6, we > observe that the 35 is clearly the winner. > For CI, the tri- is "very good, good". And the 35 is "excellent, very good". Dominique, What I want to point is that the Tri-Elmar is better (in my opinion) than what CI say about it. And the same for the APO 90/2 ASPH. There is more difference between the former 90/2 and the APO than what they said IMO. But maybe they tested two below average lenses in both those tests. > Yes, I know, "CI is -as other photographic reviews- totally bought off to > Nikon, or Canon or Minolta. And only Leica foto is an independent > review".;-)) Dominique, I'm reading CI since more than 20 years now, and I never missed one issue. I know perfectly well they are not sold to any company. But they are sometimes biased by there own beliefs. And that's part of their strengths. They have strong beliefs and that's great. But they are certainly not not omniscient. By the way, I cannot read MTF graphs like you do. All I can do is take pictures and look at it with a loupe or project them on a screen. And there I can see that the Tri-Elmar is really a great lens. It's really an achievement when you realize all the constraints they had in order to make it happen. It was much more difficult to design it than a Reflex zoom. Lucien