Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?
From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:33:50 -0400
References: <006f01c00bec$5ac7ba00$c0dffea9@d2p8j6> <3.0.6.32.20000822074417.00918720@pop.microtec.net>

Why are these R lenses considered to be weak?   Because they were made by
Minolta?   And why are Minolta lenses considered weak?  Because they built
the weak R lenses?   And why are the R lenses weak?  Because they were made
by Minolta?  And why are Minolta lenses weak?  Because they built the weak
R lenses?  And why....

Dan C.

At 04:14 PM 22-08-00 +0200, Axel Schwieker wrote:
>Dan Cardish wrote:
>> 
>> >> Does Minolta match the high optical knowledge and quality of Leica?
>> >
>> >No. 'Nuff said.
>> >
>> Bull Shit
>
>If this is BS an Minolta glass is up to Leica quality-wise, why is it
>that the Minolta-derived lenses in the R line (24mm and some Zooms) are
>generally and widely considered to be some of the weaker glasses
>(relativly speaking) in the R line?
>
>Axel
>
>

In reply to: Message from "Terry Sham" <tsham@netvigator.com> ([Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)