Well, as I\'m sure you will admit, that is anecdotal. I\'m not saying you are wrong, merely that a throwaway comment is hardly evidence that you are correct in your assertion. naturephoto1 wrote: waterden wrote:
I\'m sure you are correct in general and, probably, for all lenses manufactured outside Germany. But for Leica lenses (and those Zeiss ones made in Germany) I would be amazed if this is the case. The main reason justifying the astronomic prices of the German-made lenses is the fact that each one is, we are told, manufactured, assembled and tested individually by hand. I cannot believe there will be material sample variation on modern Summiluxes, Summicrons or whatever unless we are all being egregiously misled by Leica. Which I also cannot believe.
naturephoto1 wrote: turnstyle wrote:
And it makes sense that the 50 Cron, Zeiss Planar 50/2, Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, and Nokton 50/1.5 would all constantly perform well, but 50 Lux would be hit-or-miss?
I\'ve been somewhat under the impression that the 50 Lux may be more sensitive to adapter width. And I\'m also somewhat under the impression that there is sample variation among the 50 Luxes -- though I would think that wouldn\'t be a factor in Sony vs M240 comparisons (as a bad sample should be bad on both).
There will be sample variation for all lenses. It is a matter of hit or miss unless you can compare several samples of the same lens to help in your decision.
Rich
No there are variations in performance of lenses even from Leica. They do tend to have more consistent and better aligned and centered than most lenses since they put extra care into this. As an example, I purchased a used Leica R 100mm f2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit and brought it in to Leica USA/North America for a lube and cleaning. As it turns out this was I believe from the first run of these lenses with the older 2 helicoids rather than the newer ones with a single helicoid. When I picked up the lens, the Leica Tech came out with the lens and made it a point of indicating that when he checked the lens performance on Leica\'s own equipment that I had an especially good performing sample of this lens.
Rich
I am sure that even Leica will admit that there is variability in samples. As I recall I have heard them say that on more than on occasion, but they normally are within tolerance limits. I know from conversations and I can not recall if they were with my friend Jim Lager, author of 8 Leica books that when Leica had Minolta make lenses for Leica they were to a much higher standard than Minolta\'s own lenses. For Leica as an example the 70mm-210mm f4 Vario Elmar lens had to be accurate to 1/6 of a stop while the like/similar Minolta lens only had to be accurate to 1/3 of a stop. Leica had a very high incidence of rejected Minolta lenses.
Well, as I\'m sure you will admit, that is anecdotal. I\'m not saying you are wrong, merely that a throwaway comment is hardly evidence that you are correct in your assertion. naturephoto1 wrote: waterden wrote:
I\'m sure you are correct in general and, probably, for all lenses manufactured outside Germany. But for Leica lenses (and those Zeiss ones made in Germany) I would be amazed if this is the case. The main reason justifying the astronomic prices of the German-made lenses is the fact that each one is, we are told, manufactured, assembled and tested individually by hand. I cannot believe there will be material sample variation on modern Summiluxes, Summicrons or whatever unless we are all being egregiously misled by Leica. Which I also cannot believe.
naturephoto1 wrote: turnstyle wrote:
And it makes sense that the 50 Cron, Zeiss Planar 50/2, Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, and Nokton 50/1.5 would all constantly perform well, but 50 Lux would be hit-or-miss?
I\'ve been somewhat under the impression that the 50 Lux may be more sensitive to adapter width. And I\'m also somewhat under the impression that there is sample variation among the 50 Luxes -- though I would think that wouldn\'t be a factor in Sony vs M240 comparisons (as a bad sample should be bad on both).
There will be sample variation for all lenses. It is a matter of hit or miss unless you can compare several samples of the same lens to help in your decision.
Rich
No there are variations in performance of lenses even from Leica. They do tend to have more consistent and better aligned and centered than most lenses since they put extra care into this. As an example, I purchased a used Leica R 100mm f2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit and brought it in to Leica USA/North America for a lube and cleaning. As it turns out this was I believe from the first run of these lenses with the older 2 helicoids rather than the newer ones with a single helicoid. When I picked up the lens, the Leica Tech came out with the lens and made it a point of indicating that when he checked the lens performance on Leica\'s own equipment that I had an especially good performing sample of this lens.
Rich
I am sure that even Leica will admit that there is variability in samples. As I recall I have heard them say that on more than on occasion, but they normally are within tolerance limits.
Rich
Nov 25, 2013 at 05:34 PM
Previous versions of naturephoto1's message #11959451 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
