Re: Nov 96 POP PHOTO Review of 50mm's -Reply

[Daniel Cardish <dcardish@spherenet.com>]

At 09:58 AM 19/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
>I believe that members of this group who get upset over a lens
>test review of a Leica lens are missing the point of tests.  The
>ultimate test of any lens is in the photos that it produces.=20
>Nothing more and nothing less.  All that lens tests in photo
>magazines tell you is (1) how sharp a lens may be, whether
>that sharpness is measured in resolution and/or contrast, and
>(2) whether the lens produces a variety of problems, such as
>vignetting, excessive flare, etc. =20
>
>Over the years I have seen lens tests of 50mm lenses by a
>host of U.S. and British magazines and in those tests Leica
>lenses are almost invariably outstanding but also on par with
>50mm lens from other manufacturers.  What that says, and all
>that should say, is that if you bought a Leica lens you will get
>extremely sharp photos.  Although you may also get extremely
>sharp photos from many of the lenses Leica may be
>compared to, you will also get different types of photo quality.=20
>And it is for Leica photo quality that photographers buy Leica
>glass. And it is for Zeiss photo quality that photographers use
>Contax cameras.  Etc.
>
>The problem with tests is how does a publication determine
>the "photo quality" that a lens produces.  Regardless of the
>type of tests made by photo magazines, it is without question
>that Leica lenses produce distinctive qualities that make it
>worthwhile for people to pay Leica prices.  I don't question
>whether lenses from other manufacturers match or exceed the
>sharpness of a Leica lens or of any lens I may be buying.  My
>concern is what a lens produces for me, given my tastes in
>color, gray scales and shadow detail, and what are the photo
>qualities of lenses by specific manufacturers.  The sharpness
>factor gives me a minimum standard.  It is not the ultimate
>standard.  Leica's problem with tests like the one in Pop
>Photo, if there is one, is a marketing problem; Leica users
>should have no such problem.  No matter how great a 50mm
>Summicron may be, why are there some Leica users who
>prefer shooting with either the old or new 50mm collapsible
>Elmar rather than with an old or new 50mm Summicron?=20
>Here sharpness alone is not the determining factor -- and that
>should be everywhere as well.
>
As I am writing this, I am looking at a print that I just made that
illustrates the above points.  The photo is of a young woman on a beach.  I
cropped out the outer parts of the picture so that while the print is 8"
x10" in size, the enlargement factor is enough to make a full frame 11x14.
The print does not appear overly sharp, though it is sharp enough (you can
make out her eyelashs, for instance).  A Nikon or Contax or Canon or Minolta
print may appear sharper (but then again, maybe not!).  Regardless, the
picture still has a very beautiful glowing quality about it that I am not
sure if the other camera brands would have captured in quite the same way.
I am sure that my print has captured that elusive "Leica" quality.  The lens
by the way is the 75 Summilux that appears to be getting mexed reviews in
the LUG.

When I get a chance I will scan the print and put it on my web page in the
portfolio section.  It will be named "Claudia N=BA 4", for those interested.
I can't guarantee that the qualities that I see when I look at the print
will survive the trip through the scanner etc.
>


Dan Cardish  <dcardish@spherenet.com>
                        <http://www.spherenet.com/dcardish/photo.htm>
=09