Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 9:56 PM +0100 10/7/00, Raimo Korhonen wrote: >Yeah - but is this difference really demonstrable in practice? I have the >chrome version (of 1963) and it is very, very, very good. >All the best! >Raimo >photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen > >-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- >Lähettäjä: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> >Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us ><leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Päivä: 08. lokakuuta 2000 17:40 >Aihe: Re: [Leica] viso/65elmar > > >>At 08:47 PM 10/8/2000 +1000, A.H.SCHMIDT wrote: >>>From what I've read, the black ones are slightly better optically. >> >>Horst, the first version was chrome and OCMOR/11062; the second lens was >>the 11162, and was recomputed optically and redesigned mechanically, and >>was in black finish. The first lens was introduced in 1960 and the >>recomputed version took its place in 1970. The lens left production in 1984. >> >>Marc >> >>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >> >> I had the chrome one for about 8 years, and then the black one for 10. No contest. The later one was clearly better in both resolution and contrast, and the difference in what may be called 'brilliance' was very large. Shots with the first one looked muted in comparison. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com