In article
>In <4u5fl7$c31@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) >writes:
>> Ummm, yes, but other "test" reports can give contrary results - and
>> personal experience can go either way, but it is more useful than
>> believing the results of flawed magazine test procedures, IM(NS)HO....
>Very well, but I at least give a reference, where you only state
>that your Nikon performs superbly and that the brand Contax is hyped.
But those statements are true, and independent (I did not say that the
Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS is better [or worse, or the same as the Contax ;-],
just that the Nikkor is excellent [from my own extensive experience
checking lenses], and that there is hype surrounding the "It's German,
it must be better" Contax image [which is odd, given the, uh, "Yashica" manufacturing of some of the "German" "Zeiss" lenses - which may [or may
not] still be really excellent, but are not of German manufacture in
either country or company [Kyrocera is Japanese, last I knew....],
irrelevant as this issue is, since the Japanese can make very fine
lenses!).
>Some articles of a Dutch company called Philips are made in the USA,
>but that doesn't make Philips an American company, does it? Kyocera
>is supposed to make the Contax lenses according to the Carl Zeiss
>constructions and standards, and is supposed to do that in a cheaper
>way than is possible in Germany.
Um, not the same - more like Philips having an American company not
owned by Philips do the manufacturing. It may be just as good, but you
cannot call the item made of Dutch manufacture....
>> And, what is that standard to which you refer? I saw a
>> high percentage of defective Leitz lenses back when I bothered to try out
>> such things...;-)
>> (Even a VERY expensive Leitz double-aspheric 35mm f1.4
>> rangefinder lens that I had the opportunity to check out recently showed
>> some noticeable optical misalignment.)
>Every lens can be broken, but the chance on a failure is presumed
>to be smaller with brands like Leica or Carl Zeiss.
>(I say presumed, because I do believe that, but I don't have statistical
>proof of it.) One statistical fact I do know, and that is that my RTS
>III spends more time in the repair shop than in my own hands, but this
>one is off the record as it doesn't exactly fit my previous statements.
Ummm, yes, but these were near-new lenses of defective manufacture -
maybe it is time to let go of the myth that somehow if it is German, it
is better and more durable - it doesn't necessarily hold up very well....
>> I still argue for ignoring the
>> mythology and "test" reports, and for objectively (or subjectively ;-)
>> examining the hardware for oneself.
>Sure, like it is easy to gather a bunch of camera's and lenses from
>several brands. However, two things I know for sure. My Carl Zeiss
>135/2.8 performs better in all respects than the Yashica DSB 135/2.8.
>(I own both), and my 1957 Contaflex with 50/2.8 Tessar beats modern
>zoom lenses from, at least, Canon and Pentax. It is a fixed-focus lens
>against a zoom, I know that, but it is also some modern technology
>unable to catch up with a fourty-year old cheap lens (that is to
>say, the Contaflex was the poor peoples Contax back then).
Ah, you are supporting my points....;-) Actually, I may not state it well sometimes (and I do like many Nikon products), but the point of my posts
is to get people to gather solid information for themselves, and come
to their own conclusions, whether they agree with me or not. I was trying
to get the original poster to see that he was jumping to conclusions
about camera systems (that may be correct ;-) based on faulty comparisons,
with maybe a little advertising/cultural-image persuasion thrown in....
It is easy, if one is buying particular items, to make "live" comparisons
(I do it all the time) between items (especially if there are only two
involved) - it may take some time, and a couple of purchases (preferably
from sources that will take the losers back....), but it can be done.
And it often happens that older items are better (don't get me started
on some of Nikon's recent lower-quality stuff! ;-) - my lens collection has
several older Nikkors that are better than the current ones (and the other
way around). BTW, if you haven't seen my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations
(Mostly Nikkors)" article, I can send you the web addresses.....
Hope This Helps