It really amazes me (on an ongoing basis!) that posters seem to say they notice no difference between german and japanese glass in terms of colour rendition and tonality. 3 nights ago I was at a leica-user friend's house and slipped in a slide taken on a canon 100 macro lens amongst my usual leica stuff. We both laughed at how poor the imagery was. As he put it "I don't remember your daughter having that pink rash" and "I don't remember your other daughter looking that colour". And no, this wasn't an exposure/filter/funny light thing: it's always like this. Are those who see no difference between japanese and german lenses being genuine? If so why bother with all the hassle - just for the improved touchy-feely? I know I wouldn't worry to spend Ģ1600 on a 35mm camera body unless I was absolutely certain that my pictures (all else being equal!) were going to be more faithful/beautiful as a result. People who claim that mamiya lenses are equally good (for the mamiya7) really surprise me. If I thought that for one moment (and I've made it my business to obsess about these things) then I'd rush out and get three (after all they're quite a bit cheaper and the neg's are enormous in comparison). For me, it's a bit like hi-fi - I'm not going to bother hooking my discman up to quad electrostatic speakers. Go on then guys, tell me that I'm wrong... but then tell me why you go with leica at all...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001

Answers

I use the Leica M system because it is very compact but affords me lens interchangeability and fast enough lenses so I don't need to use 400-800 speed film to hand-hold. I use the Leica R system because the lenses perform well at the wider apertures, once again allowing me higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake and to stop subject motion on slower film. I use Nikon AF for wildlife photography because for my lens choice (300/2.8) the Leica optics hold no technically-demonstrable (i.e. MTF tests)performance advantage for their obscene cost, and the Nikon bodies have built-in motor drives that take AA batteries. I use Hasselblad for landscape photography because no 35mm format including Leica can compete with the image detail. I agree that there are differences between the color renditions of different lens manufacturers (not limited to German vs Japanese, either). In fact many times I prefer to use an 81A or B on my Leica lenses because I find them a tad too cool. I have never shot with any Canon lens so I can't comment on the "pink rash" with the 100 Macro. I have always used as my reality-check the fact that 90% of 35mm users in the world don't use Leica, including most of the high-paid, well-known, published artists...who obviously know of Leica, could afford it, and one has to assume would switch instantly if it gave them a career advantage. To take the attitude that the superiority of Leica optics is plain as day would be tantamount to putting myself above all those successful professionals.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

As with many things there is a law of diminishing return and an attention to detail that does not exist on lessor objects. This is not limited solely to cameras, but also to clothes, cars, wine, stereo speakers and many other items. unfortunately i have expensive taste in cameras (leica) and speakers (martin logan). i do not buy expensive suits because the difference is lost on me and since i can not fully appreciate the additional attention to detail i do not choose to spend my money on it. i do not however begrudge those that do spend there money expensive clothes, because perhaps they can see the difference where i can not , just like i can feel the difference between leicas and other cameras. if i really wanted to save money i would learn to be satisfied with wine that comes in a screw top jug and not some of the stuff that prefer.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

My philosophy is to choose one tool and learn it inside out. If the goal is to take pictures which are compelling/ captivating then its best achieved if the photographer evolves with his tools. That's not to say a photographer can't endeavor to try thing out that won't work out. I tried the Hassy system out... sold everything after I got into the M system. Reason? Hassy not me, M is the way I see. Life is about risk. However, to suggest that one photographic tool is superior to another bordering on hubris. The photographer uses the tool... not the other way around.

I may not be at "the stage" that I want to be at in my evolution as a photographer but I certianly don't feel any strong need to justify my choice of tools. I'm sure more accomplished photographers like David Alan Harvey don't have to justify what they use at all.

The images are all that matter.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 21, 2001.

I have had not many oportunities to check on other brand lenses; and my main work is in B&W, but the most important thing that stickes me to the M system is itīs finder and compactness and of course quality of image, but have not enough experience with japanese lenses to make a comparison. Lucky me!

But letīs be fair, the 20/2.0 Canon FD is for me a good lens for B&W at least, as well as 24/2.8 and an old 35/2 from Nikon

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

I choose Leica R and Hassy for my personal work, partially because of the German optics, partially because of the feel, partially because of the ergonomics, partially because of the logo. For my commercial work it really doesn't matter what I use; no one will see the difference anyway.

Hooking up a Discman to a pair of Quads wouldn't be so bad, if you had a suitable amp in between them. From what I know, the difference in high-end CD players is mostly in the analog sections.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 21, 2001.

Hmm,

I used to have a Canon EF 100mm macro lens. Very neutral colors. Extremely high sharpness. Excellent contrast and bokeh to die for.

I found Canon fixed focus lenses to be very consistant in these qualities. Some manufacturers are not so consistant.

I like the Leica M series for its superior wide angle lenses and the better low light focusing ability of rangefinders in general.

It is possible to like Leica equipment and still respect and use other companies products.

-- Marc Bergman (shotput8@earthlink.net), December 21, 2001.

If all that is required in the competitive world of photography, to excel over most of the other participants, is to buy a specific brand, then that would be a defacto requirement. You wouldn't see anything but Leicas, and anyone caught with a (gasp!) Nikon or (ha!) Canon, would be laughed out of the profession.

In the real world though, somehow more people are earning money with these "inferior" brands.

I love the work of David Allen Harvey, but I would bet more people (photographers and non-shooters alike) could close their eyes and remember the head shot of that Afghan girl shot by McCurry with a lowly Nikon and 105mm lens, than any single Harvey image. If any glass that is not Leica is crap, then are we being tricked by those shooters producing great work without it?

Or wait... could it be that the "tools" do nothing on their own?

For me, I use Leicas only because of the rangefinder cameras. There was nowhere else to go for that type of camera. My SLRs are all Nikons, used with prime manual focus Nikkors. My only though on which one I use is which camera type is more appropriate for the subject. I've been stunned by both sets of glass... when a photo works, it just works.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

I think that the argument that since lots of pros use nikon and canon they must be good is absurd: for a start, lots of people who earn money from photography are very poor photographers with little or no feel/interest in photography: I've been to enough weddings to know that. In any case, for news/sports work delicate nuances of tone are really not important - the fella who gets the shot, wins. If people really just want a compact and discreet camera what about the konica hexar (original) - you could get four or five for the price of an m6+35asph. Marc- one of us is wrong, that's for sure. If you really used that canon lens on the same transparency film as your leica pictures and still thought they were comparable well..sheesh I don't know what to say. What drives me up the wall, is that if only I could get hold of you guys' eyes I could save myself a fortune as well as a deal of hassle. Perhaps it's all in my mind (and my wife's - she wouldn't let me take a picture of her with a nikon lens!) although, as I've said before, it's funny that every time I go "wow" to a picture in the National Geographic I later discover that it was taken on a leica (M or R). In any case all you people who don't see much/any difference - go do yourself a favour and get a nikon - those cameras are so reliable and affordable and the flash system is awesome (you can always get a hexar for candids) - what's stopping you? I can't help feeling that if a person sticks with a system because they're nicely built (does not equate to reliability!!) this is a fairly dodgy reason: after all, photography is really about images, not toys, otherwise we should all be collecting metal model trains (probably a better investment, may even be more fun...)

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001.

As he put it "I don't remember your daughter having that pink rash" and "I don't remember your other daughter looking that colour"

Sounds like there is a processing problem. Even most point and shoots won't change color to that degree.

Go do a scientific test, because that quote is proof that something serious is wrong, not a difference between lens brands.

I show my photos and sell them, and the one that always makes a difference is format. I had a stock agency pick from digital files and they were all medium format, despite being moderately low resolution. But that was it. No distinction between different 35mm systems. (The medium format images were taken with German and Japanese and lensless equipment.)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 21, 2001.

forgot to say

Al - re: the afghan girl. I agree this is a great shot with lovely colours - particularly those limpid eyes- But... Steve McCurry is a fine photographer who only photographs at particular times of the day, usually after or during bad weather, to get the colour richness that he does get. In other words, he is going out of his way to do everything right, and the upshot is that he gets some wonderful shots and probably would whatever cameras he used.(btw, I used to be a nikon junkie and it was felt by just about everybody that the 105 2.5 was the best portrait lens that nikon has ever made - nothing lowly about this choice then, despite it's affordable price) Now, to be frank I do not have sufficient confidence in my ability - I want to maximise my chances/ give myself the best possible odds and I really do believe that this is done ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL by using leica glass. As for the comparison with dah, I think it's a very interesting one. In general, I think dah actually relies on the beautiful tonality of his lenses - how they deal with light etc - a little too much and McCurry seems to work harder compositionally. For all that, if the question was which pictures were more beautiful - in terms of tones alone- the answer would be DAH's: just compare his cuba book with mccurry's south south east to see what I mean. Finally, and however much of a w***er it makes me, I look through his "portraits" book and often, really often, regret that he hadn't used a leica/zeiss lens. If this makes people guffaw well so be it: I can only tell the truth as I see it: if other people see nothing different - fine - but I assure you I'm not lying to be a leica snob or any other kind of snob - on the contrary, I go to bed each night hoping I can find a cheaper system with lenses I like (and believe me, I've tried them all...)

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001.

Jeff- I'm going to do that test, asap and hopefully before I go totally mad.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001.

I use Leica M6 because I want the best possible quality in my snapshots AND: -I prefer 35mm format, AND -I like a compact kit that doesn't need a camera bag. Maximum set-up is 90mm in left pocket, 35mm in right pocket, body w/50 around neck, extra film in shirt pocket, flash in back pocket (and I simplify from there), AND -I hate tripods and only use them when I must (last time was 30 years ago with a 4x5) AND -Leica is easy to focus for my increasingly presbiopic eyes, especially in low light, AND -I like to set my own aperture, pick my own shutter speed, and I like auto (as in self) not auto (as in automatic) focus, AND -I love the worksmanship, craftsmanship, ruggedness, and beauty of the camera, AND -Did I mention the lenses?

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), December 21, 2001.

In LF circles, dealing with color differences between brands or even color differences in different length lenses from the same manufacturer, is (was) a way of life. We bought a lot of colored gels... It has only been fairly recently, like the last ten years, that LF lens manufacturers have paid attention to this detail. Nikon was the first to correct their LF lenses to the same color, followed by Fuji, and finally by Rodenstock and Schneider. FWIW, Rodenstock's were often favored 20 years ago because they were at least reasonably consistent in their color cast. It was common to see a piece of tape on the lens-cap denoting the appropriate CC factors to apply to a specific lens so a photographer could balance to their own standard. It is a habit still practiced by many who use older LF lenses. Even today, if you use brand-new LF lenses of different manufacture, you end up balancing them with gells to some individual color-standard of preference.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

Actually I can compare lensen because I just recently bought a Leica R4s and compared the Summicron 50/2 with the Minolta 50/1.4 MD (on a x-700) at the same apertures with a B&W testsheet. In itself the minolta MD 50/1.4 is considered a very good lens and I have been using it with great satisfaction sofar. Well, up to now. If I compare the prints (that were small about 10x15cm) there is not a single line really straight on the Minolta, while the Summicron are so straigth I can put a ruler next to the line an don't see a diversion from a straight line. For the minolta it is clearly visible, even with small appertures. So considering these lenses both originate in the 70/80's the comparison is valid. If the progress in lenses continues on both sides with equal speed, there will still be a clear difference, even with modern lenses.

But to use Leica's own words: "It's all right if you want to spend your life shooting test-images, but the main point is 'are you satisfied with your real-life pictures'"

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), December 21, 2001.

I think the basic premise of this thread is really funny, and I'm glad to see that none of the respondents have agreed with the initial premise. There are lots of great reasons to shoot Leica, but the notion that compared to Leica, "Japanese primes make it look like portrait subjects have a skin rash" is laughable. As others above have said better than I can, if the color differences were as dramatic as claimed in the initial post, no professional with a decent pair of eyes would shoot anything but Leica. That many or most pros (including portraitists) don't go exclusively with "German glass" suggests that reasonable people may differ on this subject. Egads.

.......

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Terry - thank you for your very rude reply - it certainly has helped me and made me realise that in fact I am not only lying but also an idiot. What would I do without such considered comments (no doubt backed by plenty of objective testing)? I really try to help those who post questions on this usenet and give of my best (however poor that may be). On the other hand, I can see a far better way forward would be to mock the questioner - that way we can all move defensively forward.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001.

Must agree with most. After 25 years of shooting (a great majority of it as a living) with Nikon, Olympus and Leica, the original premise here is just not true. Though in a side by side comparison (I once did a faily extensive test between Olympus and M glass) there were SUBTLE differences, mostly in the area of contrast (there seemed better shadow detail with the M glass). Though there were slight differences in color rendition, it was in no way exaggerated or objectionable. In fact when I've shown the results to other photographers I get as much personal preference for the Olympus shots as the M. The only reason I switched entirely at the time to the M was its low light capabilities..

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 21, 2001.

I like my nikon lenses better stopped down and the leica ones wide open or close to it....as a generalisation.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

I have to say I think Steve is right. I cannot understand why anyone would buy into Leica M simply to have a compact/low light/rangefinder... If that's the reasoning then there's nothing wrong with Hexars or Voigtlanders. No, the only reason that its worth spending two to three times as much as the competition is the quality of the image. If you want the best wide open quality, finest bokeh and subtlest tonal graduation then there is only one system to go for. I'm sure other brands produce some fine lenses and consequently good images, but IMHO they simply are not as good as those from Leica.

The Afghan girl is truly a startling image. It would probably have been even better if taken with a 75 or 80 'lux. I'm not knocking the set up used or the image that was produced, just putting forward the proposition that it is possible that it could be improved. Sticking with the hi-fi analogy, classical record companies regualarly issue operas recorded in the 60s or even the 50s. Why? simply because the performances are magnificent. Do the recording deficiencies jar? Of course, but that doesn't stop the beauty of the performance shining through. However, they would sound even better with modern recording technology, digital or analogue (let's not get bogged down in that one!). I think it's the same with many respected and admired photographs, such as the Afghan girl. Use the best lenses and other things being equal then you will end up with best image quality.

-- Matthew Pulzer (pulzer@dial.pipex.com), December 21, 2001.

While I don't obsess on these thing my lightbox has a CRI of 98. I also use Rodenstock loupes.

Why not post a scan of the offending slides? Color me curious.

-- Marc Bergman (shotput8@earthlink.net), December 21, 2001.

Steve:

I think I need to more specific here...

I have noticed the "pink" skin you are referring to. And I've seen it with Japanese glass, not German.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

I don't think it is so much Germany v. Japanese but really brand v. brand. Made in Germany, Canada, Japan Leica lenses are in general superior to made in Germany or Japan Contax lenses. Cosina/Voigtlander lenses are better than Konica RF lenses but not as good as Contax G2 and especially Fuji/Hasselblad Xpan lenses. Whew! That is as much apples v. oranges I can do in one day.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 21, 2001.

The old rule of thumb use to be "any color shift is OK, as long as it's warm(red)". Bovine excreta.

In my interrum leica days, I dumped an 35mm f/2 Canon FD lens for this sin. Any noticeable color shift is bad.

Leica glass does not have this problem. That said, my *sharpest*, most contrasty lens is a Vivitar(!), yes Vivitar. The old cheapo 3rd part lens manufacturer. A 90mm f/2.5 Series 1 macro. In Canon FD mount. In fact, it's the only reason I even bother to keep my Canons around, as the Leicaflex is a wonderful system, and the 100mm f/2.8 Elmarit R macro is reputed to be perhaps the world's sharpest lens. But there's a special quality to that Vivitar! The Canon lenses themselves are very nice (the 50 f/1.4 is a wonderful lens, as is the 200mm f/4) but they aren't better than their Leica counterparts.

But there's more to lenses than sharpness. Portability and ease of use are also important considerations. I take many more 90mm shots with my 90mm old style Summicron (long focus version) than the Vivitar. It balances wonderfully on my M3, and that 2/3 stop faster speed makes for a 2/3 faster shutter speed, which, hand held (that's why we're using 35mm cameras, isn't it?) is just that much sharper. I also get to see what's outside the frame (try *that* win an SLR!)

IMHO, the reason you go with Leica M is that it does what it does, in it's limited way, better than any other system does anything else. Within those limitations are about 95% of the pictures you'd ever want to take.

For a more detailed rant, see my site.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), December 21, 2001.

That web site doesn't seem to work. Somehow Phillip's site prefixed itself to the HREF! Here it is, in plain, unHTMLized english:

208.218.135.74/photography/photo35.html

Also, win should be with, in the 2nd to last paragraph.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), December 21, 2001.

Funnily enough, I spent long hours last afternoon and through the night going through my last 5 years of slides and filing a selection of them in new archival sheets.

Last 2 years, all my slides were shot through Leica. R and M. With a only couple of series shot through GR1 and Minox 35 (I feed these mostly with b/w). Some good pics, many disposable ones.

But going through older slides (mostly Velvia), I noted amusingly that not only some long forgotten series were technically *very* flattering, but that i was honestly incapable of determining what hardware was used on most of them.

Oh yes, I could trace the month/year when I bought my M6 and 1st M lens, and check the date on the slide frame if the Mandler spirit could explain certain "glows". But that setup was used for a long period of time in parallel with a full Nikon system, and a small Contax system (50/85), so date alone is not enough.

So, would resolution and other imaging qualities give away what were Leica and what were N or C? Well no! Memories of the circumstances would be the only reliable clues: "oh yes, I remember carrying the F90 on that trip", or "oh yes, I did do that session with the 85 f1.4 planar", or, "no, I did not yet have the 90 elmarit at that date"...

From a techie point of view (resolution, contrast, colours, tonal gradation, etc), the good pictures of the time seem to me just as good as today's keepers, and the mediocre ones just as bad (the disastrous ones had already been eliminated back then). Maybe the infamous bokeh is a give away on some: the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 does often provoke doubling of patterns in the background, but that is just about all !

A series in particular left me really puzzled: beautiful portraits, smooth and sharp at once, but no idea what was used. Certainly not Leica, because I did not own Leica then. Very narrow DoF and superb creamy background: would that be the 85 planar? The 105 wide open on a homogeneous backdrop? The 90 Tamron? Or was it that 85 f1.4 Nikkor that I had borrowed during a few weeks that year ? I just do not know.

I am no optical engineer, but I believe I have a trained eye. By all means, I cannot agree with the post that triggered this thread: lens signatures are really much more subtle than what is suggested !

Oh, BTW, emptied the bank account and just bought the 75 'lux, and am delighted by the results. First series are just as beautiful, creamy , natural and sharp as that unidentified portrait series of 4 years ago shot through a lens of 1/4 of the cost or less....

So, why spend all that money? Because Leica is excellent and beautifully engineered. For M, it is also more fun, smaller and more practical !

-- Alan (alan.ball@yucom.be), December 22, 2001.

"The Afghan girl is truly a startling image. It would probably have been even better if taken with a 75 or 80 'lux. . . . Use the best lenses and other things being equal then you will end up with best image quality."

Problem is, other things aren't going to be equal. The best images are going to come from the photographers who care about what they're shooting, not the ones who care about what someone else thinks is the finest lens.

And to address the initial questions (as well as the assertions of some other posters): My primary reason for using Leicas is not because of the latest, greatest Leitz glass or even that the old lenses have some magical quality. Since my primary reasons for using Leicas have already been dismissed by those who, apparently, have it all figured out, I won't make any feeble attempts to explain them. I will note, however, that they're my cameras, my lenses, my film, my pictures--I don't have to justify a damn thing to any of you.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 22, 2001.

"I have to say I think Steve is right. I cannot understand why anyone would buy into Leica M simply to have a compact/low light/rangefinder..."

Well, I fall into that camp. The simple reason is that I bought my Leica equipment before the Hexar RF came out, otherwise I would certainly have bought that. And I'm stil sometimes tempted to exchange the M's for a couple fo RF's except I'd feel such a fool for losing so much money on the deal. I've got them now, so I'll stick with them.

As for the Leica lenses, I have to say that no agency/photoeditor I've shown my work to (slides) has ever been remotely interested in what make of camera/lens I used. They are terrific lenses, but if using Leica was the only way to get good skin tones and so on, then all pro photographers would be using Leica gear and Leica prices would probably be correspondingly lower, which would be nice.

So, however rude it may seem to you, Steve, I have to say that your story about the skin rash sounds improbable, to say the least. It's far more likely that bad processing was at fault. It's very likely that if you had the pictures processed in Asia, they came out with a pinkish cast as labs there often deliberately emphasise a pinkish cast to please their customers in these countries where fair skin ("wheatish complexion") is highly prized. At least in India this is the case.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 22, 2001.

"We both laughed at how poor the imagery was. " Did you laugh out loud at that absurd Canon 100 Macro, or merely snicker?

Just kidding!

I can see a difference between my Leica and Nikon pictures, but not consistently. And I often prefer my Nikon pictures. Quality images trump image quality, as is often said. What I can see in my Leica lenses is the consistently high quality of each new lens I buy. But then, at $1000+ a pop, that is how it should be. But then every $300+ Nikon prime I've acquired is similarly pleasing.

So, oh yes, the Leica pictures have all those qualities of roundness and so on, but it does not always jump out at you, often does not matter anyway because other things in the picture are more important, and in any case the Nikon pictures are hardly "flat".

What is nice is that the Leica lenses are mostly smaller and easier to carry around.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about the Japanese Glass-Pink Complexion connection. I've often noticed just that in posters and ads for Japanese camera and lenses that use Japanese models.

Whether its the climate, cold studios, the subjects pinching their own cheeks before the shoot, the processing, or the lenses, its impossible to say. I've never seen the effect in my own shots.

But its there. While Web pics are hardly a standard for color examples, for an example of what I'm referring to, look at the rightmost picture here

http://www.cosina.co.jp/75sl/saku.html

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 22, 2001.

I have to agree somewhat with Steve here. I went to Strasbourg for a month and took a lot of pictures (all slides) with both Nikkors and Leica glass, and after looking at them carefully I can see a slight difference in colour rendition. Not blatantly obvious, nevertheless noticeable to me. Nikkors all are very slightly warm. As someone already mentioned, I can almost duplicate that with a 81a on the Leica glass. I don't do a lot of portraits so I can't comment on skin tones, though there was a picture of my wife done with the Nikkor 105/f2, a very fine lens, that she hated because the whites of her eyes came out looking somewhat jaundiced. The same sitting done with a 135 Elmarit was much prefered by her. What can I say? Pros use whatever equipment they are comfortable with. Afterall, their livelihood depends on them getting the pictures, and no pros are going to use equipments they don't personally prefer. Equipments are more than just lenses, it is the entire package of bodies, flash capabilities and overall lens quality. I like the Afgan girl pic by Steve McCurry, and I also like the Cuba work by DAH. But I think the difference between these two body of work reflects more on their respective style than the equipment they use. Heck, I'll be damn happy to get some pics like either of those, irrespective of the equipment that I happened to carry with me. Ok, too much already. Cheers.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), December 22, 2001.

One reason pros don't shoot with the R system is the weight of the lenses. You can't expect them to run around in Afganistan for 4 months with a system that weighs at lease twice as much as the Nikon et al. The next problem is the servicing. Try having your broken R8 fixed outside of Europe or the US. Fagettaboutit! On the other hand Canon China will fix your EOS 1v in one day in Beijing. The third is that the agencies are telling you to scan and send images in digital so any subtle advantages of Leica would be moot anyway.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 22, 2001.

thank goodness for that - I agree completely with Rai...phew

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 23, 2001.

Wow this thread seems to be more about Japanese lens bashing than anything else (a common Leica owners trait it seems) By one bad experience with one Japanese lense you generalize about all of them. Each lens has its own qualities and the blanket claim that every German lens must be better than one made in Japan simply isnt true. Without having compared every lense there is (which is impossible) no one can make that claim. I see each of the manufacturers make a particular lens that at that time is the best in its range. Hence why certain lenses get reputations for being the best in their field. But lets use the 40mm Summicron Vs 40mm Rokkor as an example ideal cause it uses idential optical formula yet one has German glass the other Japanese Glass). They produce identical results!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), December 23, 2001.