On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:51:58 GMT, "Jeremy 1952" wrote:

[...]
>I wish that someone could just point to two photos, side-by-side, and say,
>"HERE is why the German lens is better than the
>Pentax/Canon/Nikon/Minolta/etc. equivalent."

It would be difficult, for several reasons:
1) Unless the conditions were IDENTICAL
(lighting, subject, focus accuracy, exposure,
film/processing, etc. - very difficult to
achieve in practice), the resulting images
would "lie". (I use comparative images for
video cameras, but the differences are more
"gross" with these - see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm).
2) Images result from a blend of lens
characteristics - and any given set of
conditions may favor one lens over another
for particular things, and the reverse for
other things - and changing the conditions
can also reverse the results (all depending
on what characteristics the viewer considers
most important, different for different people).
In my Nikkor *subjective* lens evaluations
(see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html),
I make those judgements for myself, then
evaluate accordingly - but I tell you what
I base the judgements on...

>At this point, it sure seems that the small margin of improvement--if indeed
>one exists--costs an awful lot more. If money is no object, then that's
>fine. But for most of us who have mundane things to pay like mortgages and
>auto expenses, it doesn't seem as though the German lenses give us much bang
>for the buck.

True - and the VERY expensive lenses are often
actually inferior (in ways I consider important)
to the less expensive. And, do not assume that
Leitz and Zeiss are German - Zeiss lenses are
often Kyocera-built, in Japan, and several of
the Leitz SLR lenses were relabeled Minolta
lenses, sold at several times the price they were
available at with the Minolta label on them...
Remember the supremacy of marketing in all of
this...;-)