Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/04

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses
From: "Steve Caspersen" <mectau@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:40:28 -0800
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205073521.00a1ecd0@pop.netvigator.com>

Is there an archive for Erwin's APEMC newsletters?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Cummer" <cummer@netvigator.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: [Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses


>
> >When I noted that my current view is that the TriElmar at 4 is better
than
> >the S'cron50 at 4, it was evident that some would object.
>
> This is Erwin from newsletter 47 of his APEMC newsletter. I have lost the
> original article unfortunately, but the gist of it was that he retested
the
> Tri Elmar with new films and concluded that at 50mm and f4.0 it was better
> than the Summicron 50 at F4.0 which is the bench mark for 50mm lens
> performance in the Leica stable.
>
> Cheers
> Howard.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net> (Re: [Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses)
In reply to: Message from Howard Cummer <cummer@netvigator.com> ([Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses)