Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello everyone, just wanted to introduce myself to the LUG as I am new to the list. I live in the southern United States and have been a photographer for over forty years (not professionally). I just wanted to comment on this post to say that I recently purchased the lens in question for use on my M6 during a recent trip to central america and have been very happy with it's performance. I've always had a good experience with Zeiss lenses. Jim On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>wrote: > Wendy, > I have a collection of over 1200 original prints of A4/Letter size, mainly > (95%) black and white, accumulated over the years through Print Exchanges, > covering every combination of camera/lens you can imagine. I cannot tell > the > camera or lens or system used by looking at a print at normal viewing > distances - this is a personal observation, others on the list might see > differences (This is an essential disclaimer on this list). Some of my > prints that other participants have enjoyed the most have been taken with > the crassest, cheapest, plastic Nikon lenses, on the crassest, cheapest, > plastic Nikon bodies. It really makes no difference to the photograph and > print. My advice to you is this - buy what you enjoy using, what falls > within your budget, what is instinctive to use. > > Most manufacturers of luxury items sell their products for what the market > will bear, period. If you cost their products, they will say that the > premium is due to 'design' or 'sophistication' or some such word, i.e. what > the suckers in the real world will pay. There is a world of difference > between perceived value (what others will think about the user) to actual > value (how good the product really is). > > The classic example of this now is Toyota! All the negative hype and > media/political feeding frenzy going on obscures the fact that their > products on the whole are exceptionally good. I really wish I could buy > their stock, but unfortunately, from India, it is not easy... > > Cheers > Jayanand > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Frank Dernie > <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: > > > Diglloyd, a subscription site, to which I no longer subscribe, had some > in > > depth analyses of the M9 and quite a few lenses. > > The 35mm f2 Zeiss ZM lens was, in his opinion, the pick of the bunch, > which > > included a lot of Leica lenses too. > > In terms of build quality he would be comparing it to current Canon and > > Nikon lenses, as well as the Leica ones and they are obviously much > better > > than them and close to Leica in his opinion. I have never used a ZM lens > but > > have a 28mm f2 for my Nikon which is much better made than recent Nikkors > I > > have used. > > In his photographic comparisons the big difference between the 35mm f2 > asph > > Leica and the Zeiss was the field flatness, with the Zeiss much better in > > the field. I am not much bothered, personally, about field flatness in > > non-copier lenses, since I rarely photograph flat objects square on, but > he > > found landscapes with the Zeiss superior to the Leica because of this. > > I may reconsider re-subscribing to the site, since I find has plausible > > data on it. > > He did have a go at reviewing the M9 and got a few things wrong and > missed > > the point at first, but eventually got well into it, he did not much like > > it. > > Anyway, IIRC depending on use he considered the 35mm f2 Zeiss to be the > > only non-Leica lens he preferred to the Leica version. > > FWIW. > > > > A little story about money. > > I worked in the R&D department at Garrard, the record deck manufacturer, > as > > a young engineer in the mid 70s. > > Their top model, the 401, had fallen out of fashion and production > reduced > > to the extent that it no longer justified being assembled on an assembly > > line. The production was therefore re-planned to be built as one offs > from > > part bins in batches. Now Garrard priced everything on a cost plus profit > > basis, unlike the competition which sold on the "what can we get for it > > after a favourable review" basis ;-). > > The assembly was re-costed and a new retail price calculated about 70% > IIRC > > more than it had been. Orders surged at the new price. > > This taught me that often a higher price makes things more attractive > even > > with no change in the product. > > BTW the production cost of these and other mass produced items, like > cars, > > tends to be about 10-20% of retail BTW. > > cheers, > > Frank > > > > On 28 Feb, 2010, at 07:01, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Vince Passaro < > passaro.vince at gmail.com > > >wrote: > > >> > > >>> Mark lit into the guy (Kevin) for his suggestion that the lens he > used > > >>> every > > >>> day for a few years was not as good as the guy (Kevin) said it was. > > >>> Regardless of the details that was the gist. "Hi Welcome to the Lug > > you're > > >>> wrong." I was suggesting perhaps "Hi, those pictures are excellent" > > might > > >>> have been a better starting point for the argument. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Which took it off topic > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Sonny > > > > > > > > > Actually my difference with him was that he was calling a ZM a "world > > class > > > lens" on par with the Leica lens costing three times as much. > > > And there were no pictures being discussed. > > > > > > [Rabs] > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >