>>3739299Ehhhhh only applies to focal lengths shorter than about 40, and even then, it's possible to make SLR glass that's just as sharp as rangefinder glass.
>>3738617>Is rangefinder glass of higher quality than SLR glass?Short answer: No.
Long answer: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There's just too large a range of rangefinder glass and too large a range of SLR glass to make any real blanket statement. There are shitty lenses for SLRs and shitty lenses for rangefinders and there are great lenses for SLRs and great lenses for rangefinders.
One thing you'll definitely find is that Leica doesn't really make any "bad" lenses these days (although there are a few old ones you can get that weren't great), but if you look at comparably priced lenses from Nikon or Canon... well, you'd be hard pressed to find comparably-priced lenses from Nikon or Canon, but if you take their top end glass it'll be just as good as Leica's stuff but for thousands of dollars less. Leica's whole range is ridiculously good, but ridiculously priced to match, so if you compare the absolute top-of-the-line lenses from the SLR companies, they're gonna be the same level of quality.
And similarly, cheapass Russian or Chinese rangefinder lenses are going to be about what you'd expect for Russian or Chinese glass, regardless of whether or not they're designed for a mirror box.
So you can't say "rangefinder glass is of higher quality than SLR glass as a general rule".
But you CAN say, as this guy put it:
>>3738688>Not better, but oftentimes more compact. 