In article <763@blake.win.net>, swedenborg@blake.win.net says...
>In my admittedly limited experience, the 50 Nikkor, Planar, Canon
>lenses are almost thrown away relative to their quality. They are
>_all_ so good and I don't think the Leica is better - except for
>minor individual variations. If you are only shooting a 50, there is
>no need to go to Leica. This is not to say the Leica is not
>outstanding, but so are the other 50's.

I would (generally) agree with the above.

>But, Leica seems to ensure the same high level quality in the rest
>of its lenses. Nikkor and Canon seem spotty, and even vary in
>individual samples. Zeiss is more consistent, but not always as
>good as one would expect for a line that compares itself to Leica.
(....)

Uh, I would (generally) not agree with the above. See "SUBJECTIVE
Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)" (go to "photography", then "NIKON"):
http://www.phys.rug.nl/mk/people/aue/photo.html
for my experience with MANY Nikkors over time, with multiple samples
of many of the lenses. What stands out about the Nikon line of lenses
is the consistently high level of design and manufacturing quality.
The relatively few Leitz and Canon lenses I have tried indicated the
opposite - defects galore, and some pretty poor designs were not
uncommon.
Hope this helps.