Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Lense testing...
From: John Hudson <>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:07:01 -0800
References: <>

Doug Herr wrote:
> On Sun, 25 February 2001, "Austin Franklin" wrote:
> >
> ><SNIP> people claim that they readily see the difference and anyone that doesn't is
> > blind as a bat and would be better off with an instamatic with a thumb print
> > on the lense.  Interestingly enough, those that claim they can see a
> > difference refuse to provide such evidentiary pictures.
> >
> There are also people who see no difference between photos made with Leica lenses and photos made with other brands, while others say the difference between brands is obvious.  My best guess?  different perception levels.

I would be interested in reading an objective and rational explanation
of what those differences are, if in fact they exist at all. Let's not
match up Leica and point and shoot / wedding camera lenses but match up
the highest calibre 35mm performers from say Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, and

BTW, I have been an M user since 1965 and an Olympus OM user since early
1999 and subscribe to both the LUG and Olympus lists as do several other
members of this list so obviously there are LUGGers who believe in other

A reasoned discussion on the alleged superiority of Leica optics /
mechanics might provoke some interesting thoughts. 

John Hudson

Replies: Reply from ([Leica] Re: Lense testing...)
In reply to: Message from Doug Herr <> (RE: [Leica] Lense testing...)