[Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

Sorry, Mehrdad, but this is the kind of thinking that's sinking Leica.
First off, why would anyone be foolish enough to pay even 1/3 extra just
to get the Leica name for lenses that are reportedly no better, and
perhaps not quite as good? And why would they do that when they can get
a name that means as much or more in the photography and optical world
as the Leica name? We're not talking Cosina here, with good glass but
mounts that are good, but not up to Leica quality. We're talking Zeiss -
Zeiss of Capa, Zeiss of Eugene Smith, Zeiss of etc. etc. And if the
lenses are as good or better than the comparable Leica lenses, and as
well made....well...If you insist on paying 1/3 more, would you please
instead consider buying the Zeiss lenses and sending me the difference?
:-)

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
mehrdad
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:44 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica


though ziess is a good name when it comes to lenses and quality, the
pricing 2/3 leica prices are too much, for "little" money you can by
voiltander lenses, and whoever is looking @ the ziess leica prices
range, i think leica  wins as it is proven,

if they can set the price point 1/2 of leica prices, they will have a
chance, pls listen ziess ikon people on the list


On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:55:00 +0100, Ruben <ruben@rhodos.dk> wrote:
> Karen
> 
> Thanks for sharing the news - I was happy to hear about the OOF/Bokeh 
> - do not care much for mtf  i can not see anyway but a 25 and a 50 at 
> 1/3 of the price sounds great :-)
> 
> Ruben
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karen Nakamura" <mail@gpsy.com>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica
> 
> > >
> >>Im asking to myself what's the point to compare so close things such

> >>these.
> >
> > On the contrary, the ZI lenses are testing at the same level as the 
> > Leica lenses but at one third the price. And the reviewers are using

> > them in conditions taht even Ted Grant would approve -- shooting 
> > from the shadow side in heavily backlit portrait situations.  They 
> > do say that even the highest end zooms would flare out in these 
> > situations but the ZI and Leica ASPH do wonderfully.
> >
> > They do mention bokeh and OOF (to reference another question). They 
> > say they are roughly equivalent but the ZI is softer while the ASPH 
> > generally are a bit harsher and thicker.
> >
> > These were all subjective tests using real photgraphs and real 
> > models, by the way. Not MTF or lab tests. And contrary to what you 
> > say, you can tell the difference even in a magazine reproduction. 
> > All the lenses were tested wide open. Stopped down, the reviewers 
> > say the difference disappears.
> >
> > All in all, I'm really excited by this news. If you're not 
> > interested, then don't buy or read! :-)
> >
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > --
> > Karen Nakamura http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 


-- 
  -------------------------------------
  regards, mehrdad _______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information