Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You really show your knowledge, Mark. The lens in question is not branded Leica. You continually express opinions based on prejudice and what you have read on Erwin's web page. I express opinions based on my own experience with the equipment in question. Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog YNWA On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:42 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > That a lens made by Panasonic with a Leica logo on it is "at least as good" > as a real Leica lens costing thousands would be not really any consensus > but > your very entitled opinion. > > I got involved years ago with Leica not because I thought the German Mark > or > clever marketing whatever inflated its worth beyond all sensibilities but > that the stuff was really worth what it cost. This played out very soon to > be true and I have the 16x20 darkroom prints to prove it. > > > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > > > >> From: Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:38:52 +0200 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] The IIIF still works >> >> Except that there are lenses out there made by people other than Leica >> (e.g. >> the 1.7/20mm Panasonic or some of the Voigtlander lenses) that do cost >> hundreds not thousands and that are at least as good as Leica's own >> offerings. >> >> Cheers, >> Nathan >> >> Nathan Wajsman >> Alicante, Spain >> http://www.frozenlight.eu >> http://www.greatpix.eu >> http://www.nathanfoto.com >> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws >> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog >> >> YNWA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> >>> Leica has as a business model the concept of making higher quality lenes >>> than its 35mm format competition so it starts with a price point a >>> magnitude >>> higher than the rest. 5 grand not 500 clams. >>> With its customers willing to pay for that kind of quality they can make >>> a >>> lens of that quality. They have glass choices a 500 dollar lens does not >>> have and they can make the construction of the lens to higher tolerances. >>> One would think some day just for fun the people at Canon or Nikon >>> could >>> come out with a 5 grand 35mm 1.4 lens but they seem to feel that is not >>> their business model mission statement. They could of course do so and >>> that >>> optic would compete directly against Leica's output. Perhaps besting >>> some of >>> them. It might make the rest of their lens choices seem cheap in >>> comparison. >>> As yet if your paying 5 grand for a lens from Canon Nikon you're getting >>> one >>> that looks like a bazooka. >>> >>> It took me ten years go amass ten Leica M lenses. I count not pick one >>> up on >>> a whim as a current job was going to pay for it and I already head the >>> rent >>> in. it had to be an ongoing financial consideration lasting about a year. >>> And it was always I felt worth it. >>> >>> >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> Photography >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> >>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:31:37 -0700 >>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] The IIIF still works >>>> >>>> Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> Optical science has not stood still ... >>>> >>>> I had an interesting discussion with a Canon technical rep some years >>>> ago. He made the point that most R&D went into not making lenses >>>> sharper per se, but rather making them "affordable" while still good >>>> enough. That reality even affects Leica -- although at a higher >>>> price-performance point. >>>> >>>> Along this line, it appears one of the main advances may be in making >>>> molded aspherics better. One simply can't make a top notch, very wide >>>> or very fast lens with only spherical elements, and the cost of >>>> grinding one aspheric at a time is even out of Leica's cost structure. >>>> I think what we'll see, going forward, is the move to more and more >>>> aspherics -- not just a single element per optic. In line with this >>>> thinking, I'd guess that the slower telephotos, where aspherics are >>>> not needed, would be the area where the older Leica lenses can best >>>> match the newer ones (at least in a low flare situation). >>>> >>>> I think one of the advantages the M series will continue to enjoy in >>>> terms of performance is the ability of the designers to ignore the >>>> requirements of AF and IS, which has to be a huge part of current >>>> optical design for the mainstream companies. >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> www.PaulRoark.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >