Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don’t feel competent to confirm that my 3.5/35-70 (E60, designed and made by Minolta) has the “Leica look” or not., because my experience with non-Leica glas is limited and not exactly in the premier league*. But I would confirm that 3.5/35-70 slides don’t stick out, if mixed with “genuine” Leica prime lenses of the same vintage. Before I bought the lens, I asked for some advice from the LUG which was positive. Ted Grant for instance described his 3.5/35-70 (Solms made E67, I think) as his “work horse”. The only lenses with a particular look , and this only if used wide open, I own are the 1.4/35 pre-asph and the 1.5/50. The others are just good lenses. When I look at my pictures I am not looking with the eye of a lens tester. I use Leica because I like the “feel” and mechanical quality. More important, I don’t want to bother about optical quality. Hans-Peter *to a Noflexar 3.8/200 (with 1.5x extender low contrast!), a Minox 35 GTS, a Ricoh GR1 and a Revue 400 SE (my first camera, a Minolta Himatic clone with a 1.7/40 lens from the early 1980s).