ho_co Posted October 16, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Cannon building Leica lenses? Wow, that's a new revelation to moi... Misunderstanding. According to the speculation--and I have yet to see anyone confirm it with more than rumor--Canon farmed out their own design to a Chinese company for production. Panasonic then bought the same lens from the Chinese company, but purchased only the ones with production tolerances tight enough to meet Leica specification. Thus, Canon did not produce either Canon's or Panasonic's or anyone else's lens. And the ones designated "Leica" were hand-picked as the best of the lot. Again, this is speculation. It could just as well be that it was a Panasonic design produced in China, and Panasonic recovered some of the cost by selling the rejects to other companies. Or as Simon implied, it may simply be that it was a Panasonic design produced in Japan and never made available to other manufacturers. In that scenario, it's simply an accident of the state of the market that so many companies had lenses of the same type at that time. But this is all pure speculation. But the fact is, the "Leica" lens made better pictures than the others. And on the other hand, the Canon owners could latch on to the rumor and say, "Well, my G2 has the same lens as your Digilux." They would naturally overlook the fact that "same design" doesn't equate to "same standards" or "same performance." As others have said--it doesn't make any difference who made it, if it is made to strict quality control standards. And Leica's standards are the tightest. In other words, once you understand that the red dot really does mean something, then the only thing that matters is that the lens bears the Leica approval. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Digital Leica Glass. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted October 16, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 16, 2006 IIRC, the Panasonic LC5, the Digilux 1 and the contemporary Canon offering in the same market all had lenses sourced from the same place. Andy-- What does IIRC mean? And I agree, this was the speculation at the time. We know the LC5 and the Digilux 1 had the same lens. The PDF I posted above (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/7282-digital-leica-glass.html#post70519) lists others suspected of using the same lens under different brands--Casio, Sony and Epson. I was surprised to see Bittner bring up the matter again, six years after the lens first appeared. Do you or does anyone have good reason to believe that these were all the same lens? Again, just curiosity. My Digilux 1 makes great images and as Steve says, that's all that matters in the end. But not knowing the full story leaves one open to not being able to correct the rumor. Thanks! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 16, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 16, 2006 Granted the raw materials are the same... It's what u do with it that makes the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted October 17, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 17, 2006 Japan has a long history of trading licencing and sub-assemblies. This article gives some insight of one company. Speaking Frankly: The Contrary Mind of Hirofumi Kobayashi - PopPhoto - April 2006 I have seen articles on how bad Sigma lenses were compared to Leica with the same publication later touting the advanced Leica lens made possible by the same company. I have seen parts on the inside of Zeiss labelled lenses that look like they were made by kinder suprise. Apart from the Leica lenses for R and M I would say that the lens construction quality is steadily declining. I have seen the insides of many lenses through a friends repair shop and despite the pro look exterior and price, the insides are a maze of flexible circuitry and delicate plastic assemblies. If its autofocus - its disposable. Enjoy it while it lasts. Cheers Pierre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 17, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 17, 2006 In fact, the German article Howard has referred to several times was pretty close (despite some wild guesses) ... the truth is, not even Tamron does a lot of things in house - although many folks believe they're THE company behind the big namebrands, and it's not surprising that people could see similar/same designs (from Japan, Taiwan, Germany or just about anywhere) being reused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 17, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2006 Yeppers... of course, R glass is dangerous.... gotta got it for the 4/3... but I will get the D lenses whenever they come out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel kk Posted October 17, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 17, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andy, that's my recollection too. At the end of the day does it really matter? Isn't it the quality of the glass that matters not who makes it? The most important factor is the cost of making lens for the camera maker( brand name )to survive. Buying lens from other makers is the best alternative means of cutting production cost in design of lens. Daniel;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 17, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 17, 2006 And Leica is doing much better now that they partnered with Panny to make reasonably priced stuff. All I care about the beautiful file at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.