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 <>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:52:21 -0400
References: <006f01c00bec$5ac7ba00$c0dffea9@d2p8j6> <> <009101c00c5d$41435f00$>

Which ones don't?  It is true that Minolta makes a slew of budget minded
consumer oriented lenses (as do Nikon and Canon etc.), but their "serious"
lenses (such as the 100/2.8 macro, the 200/2.8 APO, all their 50s, their
85/1.4 etc., etc.) are excellent lenses, and if they are less than Leica
equivalents, it will only be apparent under the most exacting test
conditions.  For instance, part from it propensity to flare (but manageble
with my 100% viewfinder in my 9),  I can't distinguish my Minolta 50 from
my 50 Summilux-M.  

In fact, I have some test pics taklen with my minolta 50, my Summilux 50
and my DR 50.  I will rescan them using Vuescan to try and get identical
scans, and post them.. you pick out the Minolta, if you can.  Give me a day
or two to find the negatives.

Dan C.

  At 05:00 PM 22-08-00 +0200, Axel Schwieker wrote:
>Hi Dan,
>i must admit that I agree with most of what you say. I will not state
>that the Minolta guys are to dumb to produce Leica quality glass. It's
>obvious that they can do so (at least in some cases) and the 24 mm
>should be prove enough. I did however mean that it's usually not their
>business to produce lenses of such a high quality and in consequence,
>most of their lenses don't reach Leica quality.

Replies: Reply from "Bob Stack" <> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
In reply to: Message from "Terry Sham" <> ([Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from Axel Schwieker <> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
Message from "Dan Post" <> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)