Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:21 PM 12/21/01 EST, SthRosner@aol.com wrote: >Note that Erwin states that at f/2,8 the 50/2 Summicron HAS PERFECT >QUALITIES. We know that the optical quality of the 50/2 Summicron improves at >f/4 and f/5,6. It is not easy to understand how the Tri-Elmar at f/4 and 50mm >can be better than perfect? And Erwin makes no reference to the Tri-Elmar's >performance at other apertures and at its 28mm and 35mm. focal lengths, >contenting himself with the assertion that <the Tri-Elmar is better. Period.> > >Full, fair and objective scientific analysis? > Y'know, Seth, there are carpers and whingers and folks of a generally negative bent, and then there are folks who accomplish something with their lives. If you want to do something positive, get down of that extremely high horse you insist on riding around, as it makes you, well, look more than a bit foolish -- verb. sap., and all that. Then walk to your nearest optical lab and using careful and proper techniques, test these lenses for yourself. Pray, let us know how your results differ from Erwin's. In the early days of the LUG, Erwin battered me to a pulp on the relative qualities of the various 2/5cm and 2/50 Summicrons. I bothered to spend a LOT of time analyzing his results with an open mind and found out that the lad knows exactly what he is talking about. So, quit your gripin' and hie the to a lab! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html