Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dante, I have had a couple of Canon lenses with fungus in them, a 50/2.8 and a late 100/4. But then I've also had quite a few without, I've not noticed a real standard of difference between that marque and Leitz. Jem - -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langer [SMTP:mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca] Sent: 19 September 2000 17:05 To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Cc: Mark Langer Subject: [Leica] Buzz Hausner's Rant re: M3 Gee, Buzz. Lighten up. Dante was just asking some questions about his M3 performance and about Canon lenses. What I find amazing about this group is that someone will ask perfectly inoffensive questions about Leicas and they get slapped right down. But when some people go on and on about watches, single malts or self-congratuatory threads about how their ownership of a Leica, Porsche and Rolex really makes them a breed apart, the Buzzes of this world remain silent. Dante, I find what you were discussing both interesting and germane to the interests of a list that calls itself the Leica Users Group. Re: your query about Canon lenses, I think that they were using harder glass, vacuum applied lens coatings and different lubricants than Leica. Certainly, I've rarely encountered problems with Canon lenses. Only encountered one with haze (an early 50mm f1.9) and one with fungus that cleaned right up. The biggest problem with Canon LTM lenses is that sometimes self-appointed guardians of the list will try and censor you when you bring them up. Mark - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Langer Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca - ----------------------------------------------------------------------