Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:28 PM 1/19/02 -0800, Henning Wulff wrote: >Pretty much the same experiences as I've had. I had a couple examples >of the 400/5 (both late) and the 400/5.6 and 6.8 were a lot better in >every respect except field flatness; especially contrast was a lot >better. Allow me to dissent. I sold the f/5.6 and f/6.8 lenses and kept the second-version f/5, which is absolutely the finest 40cm lens I have ever used, exceeding even the Kilfitt and Novoflex lenses in performance -- VASTLY better contrast was what I found with the f/5 lens. (I have owned two f/5.6 and one f/6.8 lenses, and have used a couple of others of both ilks. The later lenses were simply not as satisfactory as was the 5/40cm, second version. I recognize that Erwin dissents from this viewpoint, so maybe I simply had five or six dud exemplars at hand -- but they will pry that 5/40cm Telyt out of my dead hands. It is a magnificent lens in all regards. As to the shorter lenses, I've never noticed a huge difference between 4.5/20cm and 4/200 Telyt or between the various versions of the 4.8/280 Telyt, but I've not made a specific study of these lenses. The 4.5/20cm is suitable for modern usages, so who cares beyond that? Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +276/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html