Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/10

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

Subject: [Leica] BLOG: How Small is it? The MS Optical 35/3.5 Perar
From: richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:47:50 -0700
References: <BANLkTinfeWEO=1AsgbRUtL9hsS6BGjKhcQ@mail.gmail.com> <80295.95313.qm@web86705.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Remember that the original was written in Japanese :-)

My take is that the Tantalum glass is superior to whatever they were using
in 1800s, and therefore it can compete competently with a Tessar,

There is a list of difference between the original and the MKII, but none
substantial. The optical elements are the same.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:47 AM, FRANK DERNIE
<frank.dernie at btinternet.com>wrote:

> Is the Mk2 different in any way to the Mk 1 ?
> I think the quote from Dirk's site is marketing speak. AFAIK the only
> reason the
> rear group of a Tessar has a cemented doublet is to achieve a refractive
> characteristic not available in a single glass (and the Leitz anastigmat
> was a
> cemented triplet for the same reason). It is therefore really the same as a
> triplet and could be made with 3 elements as soon as the suitable optical
> glass
> becomes available. That is perhaps what Miyazaki has done. As to tantalum
> glass
> having "superior refractive qualities" surely this is absurd? Optical
> glasses
> all have different refractive and dispersion qualities so some are suitable
> for
> some applications and others for others. Absolute superiority is a
> difficult
> concept to convince me of in this context.
> Anyway I have had a Mk 1 since just before Christmas. Apart from quite
> extreme
> vignetting wider open than f5.6 it is satisfactory and amusingly tiny. I
> use
> mine more on a M8.2 since the vignetting is less intrusive. The coding is
> so
> imprecisely done on mine it does not register as being coded.
>
> FWIW
>
> FD
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Man <richard at imagecraft.com>
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Friday, 10 June, 2011 10:51:54
> Subject: [Leica] BLOG: How Small is it? The MS Optical 35/3.5 Perar
>
> Look, Leica content :-)
>
> http://www.5pmlight.com/?p=2320
>
> --
> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
> // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com>
> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
> replies in your msgs. ]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
// icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
// richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com>
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]


In reply to: Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] BLOG: How Small is it? The MS Optical 35/3.5 Perar)
Message from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] BLOG: How Small is it? The MS Optical 35/3.5 Perar)