Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I thought myself that the focusing errors with the 90/2.8 were due to a rangefinder that needed adjustment. PopPhoto, though, almost never mentions a negative comment and then only in a casual off hand manner. To point something out the way they pointed out the persistent light fall off, means it was serious indeed. They would be familiar with the normal light fall off due to optical design constraints. I feel that this problem is endemic not systemic as others that I trust have given the 28/2.8 glowing reviews. Once again, I feel, this shows poor QC on Konica's part. We have a high concentration of Leica users on this list and the so we hear many QC problems about Leica that I seldom hear in the normal photo community. Konica's QC problems have been very pronounced and persistent in the normal photo community. It is understandable in a way as they have not made a coupled rangefinder camera for many years. What I do not find acceptable is the fact that they copied the Leica mount and rangefinder, with Leica's assistance, and then refuse to address ordinary compatibility issues. Some Konica distributor's seem to have a better attitude, and if they all start providing good support I can see a rosy future for the camera. Now if they would just release the 50/1.2 as a regular production lens! :-) John Collier > From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> > > > The first one (Amateur Photo) I read - and the article itself talked about > low finder magnification being a factor. I think the real issue is that > the travel for 1m to infinity is 1/4 turn, vs 1/2. It gives you the > opportunity to overshoot the subject. But that's more of a design > tradeoff to allow faster focusing. One thing that I didn't like about the > 90/2.8 Elmarit-M was that the travel was too long (ditto for the 90/2). > > The vignetting (in the article, "falloff") was not listed as much of a > problem in PopPhoto. And as a potential design issue, it is not a quality > control one. It's something the bedevils all wideangles. > > ------------ > Dante Stella > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, John Collier wrote: > >> Amateur Photographer had focusing problems with a 90/2.8 while PopPhoto had >> none. PopPhoto had vignetting with the 28/2.8 which persisted through out >> the whole aperture range while others have claimed that the lens is the >> equal of the Leica. That is two which come to mind without digging. >> >> John Collier >> >>> From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> >>> >>> What was the problem with the lenses? That's the first I've ever >>> heard about that. Of course, it's getting hard to separate statistics >>> from innuendo with this thing... All test reports I have seen put the >>> lenses at top of the pile, giving deference to Leica. Aside from the >>> RF-infinity rumblings and the "too easy" lens release, I have seen nothing >>> in the way of complaints. Some infinity problems may be attributable to >>> other things. >>> >>> I think Mikiro is right - if there are problems that can be >>> adjusted, it's not a big deal. If I had to pick a QC problem, it would be >>> an RF out of adjustment and not bad meters, light leaks, and >>> self-disassembling rewind cranks (all seen on this list with M6s). >>> >>> Personally, I wouldn't buy any rangefinder without an opportunity >>> to test it in person. The Hexar RF, although similar in design to the M >>> finder, does not have the easily accessible screws for adjustment. Hence, >>> it is safest to pick it up in person and not to ship it around. >>> >>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, John Collier wrote: >>> >>>> The focusing problems that I have read about, are not limited to Leica >>>> lenses, they also affect the Konica lenses as well. There seems to be a bit >>>> of a quality control problem with the Hexar RF and its lenses. I have read >>>> both praise and damnation from unbiased sources and little rhyme nor reason >>>> to explain the differences in opinion. >>>> >>>> John Collier >>>> >>>>> From: Ernest Nitka <enitka@twcny.rr.com> >>>>> >>>>> Dante - Many thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down on >>>>> "paper" >>>>> - I very much appreciate this effort. After posting the question I came >>>>> up >>>>> with some hypothetical responses myself >>>>> -ernie ur getting old ( true 'nuff) and so are your eyes >>>>> -50/1 is tough even with M6 classic >>>>> -how do your work horse lenses compare and does the DOF even wide open at >>>>> f/2 cover up the problem? The answer is that with 35/2, 35/1.4 and 50/2 >>>>> seemed to be close enough for the DOF to handle when open all the way >>>>> open. >>>>> Also brought out the M4 to check and all three ( M4, M6 and hexar) were >>>>> all >>>>> reasonably close. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps a tempest in a teapot so long as I don't shoot 50/1 or 90/2.8 wide >>>>> open. On the other hand when I presented the problem to my wife (standard >>>>> issue leica spouse -"what the hell do you need another camera for") her >>>>> response is that If I need a Hexar lens to test I should just go out and >>>>> buy >>>>> it - so there may me a silver lining to this cloud. >>>>> >>>>> Now for the inverse ? Anyone have problems taking Hexar lenses and using >>>>> them on M bodies? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >