Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Hi Dan. My experience with these types of simple comparisons is that the results one sees are very likely to reflect the impact of a number of variables other than the quality of the lens in question. When I compared my Nikon to my Leica M and R systems a few years ago, I found the results were very sensitive to the type and speed of film being used, how the slides were projected (Leica vs. other), how the film was developed and by whom, how the prints were made and by whom, etc. The conclusion I reached was that the faster or more contrasty the film, and the more "commercial" the process used to develop/project/print the final result, the less I could differentiate the results between my Leicas and my Nikon. However, when using Leica projectors, or printing with a V35, doing my own development and print work, etc., using APX 25 and 100 film, etc., the difference to my eye was dramatic. The Nikons were sold. Just another happy Lugger working away with an R-8 and an M-6. Best regards, Bob. On Tuesday, August 22, 2000 12:52 PM, Dan Cardish wrote: > 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.