[Leica] R lens comparison

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Hi Mark
> I think the more of the Leica difference is in the mount design and
> precision than people realise. I believe the Leica R versions of the
> Minolta designs (and Sigma) were better because of better mechanical
> design and manufacture and better quality consistency. Particularly
> wide angle and zoom lenses require extraordinary precision in the
> positioning of the elements both radially and axially for the actual
> production lens to produce the full potential of the design. Zoom
> lenses need extreme precision in the cams moving the elements about.
> According to Canon lenses can be, and of course must be for
> autofocus, made less sensitive to manufacturing precision by clever
> design and adding elements. This means the objective of the design
> compromise is leaning in the direction of ease of manufacture and
> suitability for autofocus rather than optical excellence.
> Leica otoh have the reputation for optical excellence and design
> lenses with this in mind. Sometimes the mechanical manufacture
> required to produce their designs is extremely expensive. The 35-70
> f2.8 zoom was short lived because it was too expensive to make. The
> tri-elmar is discontinued, possibly because of unavailability of
> glass but rumour has it that the design was extremely expensive to
> manufacture. The WATE notably does not have the extremely expensive
> frameline moving mechanism built in (unfortunately for usability but
> probably fortunately for cost) and was available at the same price as
> the original tri-elmar despite the extra optical sophistication
> required for the extra angle of view.
> 
> Leica certainly do use sophisticated glasses to get the best
> performance from a minimum number of elements but I am sure the
> mechanical mount is where most of the extra cost is over the others
> and why sample variation is almost never mentioned with Leica lenses
> but is continuously discussed in Sigma, CV and Canon lenses. I
> suspect the biggest differences between the Voigtlander branded
> rangefinder lenses and the Zeiss lenses made by the same people will
> be in the specification of the precision and this will explain the
> price difference.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 


absolutely Frank. tolerances have got to be a good part of it.
The price of the glass itself they are willing to use a nice chunk as I was
saying.
And as you're saying I think; quality manufacturing workmanship being the
main thing.
__

I hear of these floating elements in zooms made of plastic.
I'd think in the high priced Leica spread they'd be for sure metal.
And real nice metal at at that!

So one bump and you don't then have a real soft lens.

Mark William Rabiner
rabinergroup.com