Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't think that the fact that some makers wrongly mark lenses is a fault of the definition... Perhaps just the lack of a legally supportable standard definition. Frank On 4 Nov, 2004, at 20:13, Mark Rabiner wrote: > On 11/3/04 10:59 PM, "Slobodan Dimitrov" <s.dimitrov@charter.net> > typed: > >> I wouldn't go so far as to say that APO is a term projecting absolute >> quality. It's more in the line of a relative value. >> It's my understanding that apo lenses focus all the color sources at a >> specific focus distance set by the manufacturer. The other ranges, >> more or >> less, work like any other optic. >> I'll gladly stand corrected if I'm wrong. >> S. Dimitrov > > To me there are two definitions of APO. > One for the better lens design companies and one for the unwashed > masses. > > For Leica Hasselblad etc it means they've really lined all three major > colors to hit the same film plane at the same time with a tele lens. > Otherwise apparently not even considered. They'd just go for two. > > For Tamron (My spell checker insists it's Tampon) or what ever > companies > you'd call the unwashed masses (I'm Bullish on Sigma) the definition > of AP0 > is: > > It cost $199 instead of $99 and it's not a total piece of junk. > > It's ok to use in public. > > Somewhere in the lens assembly there is a part not made of plastic. > > And the glass is real glass not acrylic. > > Real nice typography on the lens barrel. They hired a graphic artist > who > does it full time. > :) > > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >