Re: [Leica] Re: impurities in lens

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Chris-
I think is may have something to do with the 'economy of scale'.
Leitz/Leica, as has been discussed here, is prone to making small batches of
lenses- someone bandied the number 200 around a while back for one of them.
Since the small batches of optical glass ar made in crucibles that may
include a few bubbles, it was a mark of a glass that was made, almost nby
hand, and was therefore not cheap. The added expense of the grinding,
matching and mounting, almost by hand, added to the expens.
I would assume that Kyocera, being in the lens making business and making
for a lot of 'Brands', that they have glass meeting Leica's specification
which is made in larger batches since it is used in other lenses. The added
expense in the LEica lenses makes sense if the grinding, assembly and
testing is still done  by Leica, and must meet their standards. The same
high quality glass, being made on a larger scale, might therefore be used in
other brands- but the mounting and testing might not be as thorough as
LEica's, and thus the lens is less expensive. Since labor seems to account
for a large part of any manufacturing process, if the assembly, testing, and
QC work is done with highly skilled workers, then the cost is going to be
higher, and the question is whether the marginal difference in quality is
worth the extras cost.
Nikon's new entry- the N80 is, from all my information, a piece of poopoo
kaakaa- poorly finish, very 'plasticky' as are the lenses with chrome plated
poly carbonate mounts.
Makes for less expensive lenses, but I wonder if any of them will be around
in 67 years, like the 1933 Elmar I sometimes use? Sure, the newer computer
controlled grinding of ASPH elements of many new lenses makes for lighter,
more efficient optic, but even then, there is enough variation that unless
you match the elements, and have someone actually test the lenses and
determine the best match of elements, then you won't get Leica quality- you
may get a lens that is superb, or one that may be not so superb- as long as
it fall into a performance range acceptable to the maker- usually with a
high volume, then it goes out the door. The 'curve' of acceptibility is
braoder there, whereas I am quite cettain that most Leica lenses spend some
time on an optical bench making sure that the results are closer to the high
end of the curve with less variation in performance. Like the old saying
goes, "If you got the money, Honey, I got the time...."
Dan ( pondering the imponderable) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Lee <chrislee@mac.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: impurities in lens


> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for sharing the information.
>
> It's not so much the effect of these bubbles/dust specks on optical
> performance that concerned me. I was just wondering why they should be
there
> considering the relative high price of Leica lenses.
>
> I have many Zeiss lenses. 4 for the G system, and 3 for the 645 system.
The
> lenses for the G system exhibit the same bubbles/dust specks as the Leica
> lenses. However, the 645 lenses are completely free of these things, and
the
> glass looks as crystal clear as one can imagine. Perhaps the higher price
of
> the 645 lenses allows Zeiss/Kyocera to institute higher QC standards then
> what they have for the G lenses. But aren't Leica lenses nearly as
expensive
> or perhaps more so than the 645 lenses?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>