Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I also think the CV lenses probably suffer more than Leica from sample variations. WA lenses require amazingly close mechanical precision. There has been a wide variance of opinion on the quality of the 15mm lens by LUGgers, for example. cheers > >>> Yes, the Leica tools MAY be a bit better in the bench tests way out at the > > corners and they are certainly built with greater quality control, but you > most likely will not realise a $1700 difference in your images above and > beyond the top quality CV tools.<< > > Short term, I agree. But what about the long run? You bring up a good point > about build. I don't want to take anything away from less expensive > alternatives. But I wonder how some of them will perform after a few years > of heavy use. You buy a lens once. But each one has a finite life -- some, I > think, longer than others. I could be wrong, but that's been my experience > over the years. I had a really sharp Vivtar lens once. I bumped it slightly, > and it wasn't so sharp anymore. > > Collectors have it all wrong. They should collect and not use the less > expensive lenses. That way they'll stay shiney and tight forever. Out of the > box performance is important. But so is lifespan. Leica lenses are built for > the long run. > > Plus, Leica lenses are so fun to shoot. > > Dave