New and Improved?

[cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller)]

Lens quality - I've never put my 2 cents in on this one but today's posting
was the 'straw...'  Someone was responding to the question of another as to
whether the current 90/2.8 was an improvement over the older 90/2.8.  On the
one side of these issues we have the folks with the test charts on their
basement walls and on the other we have the warm fuzzy folks who see a
certain 'glow.'

I read somewhere many years ago that lens resolution quality was far beyond
that of current films.  This is still probably true.  Last year I shot a
scene (architecture) with a 1939 (coated) Summar on a IIIF and TMY.  The
camera was on a tripod.  Paying attention to the issue of circles of
confusion, I stopped my lens down two stops beyond the depth of field I was
looking for in the image so I would achieve critical sharpness
(theoretically) up to 16X20.  The image was enlarged through a tremendous
German optic. I was amazed by the image quality - stunning.  A different
quality, I will admit, than if I used my current 50 - but sharp and of
sufficient contrast.  More recently, I took a shot out of the hole in a
Piper airplane with my 1979 vintage 90 Summicron at a moderate aperture.
The image is so sharp I can't believe it came from 35mm (until I look at the
T-Max 400 grain).

Point is, so much of what people are looking for is already in the lenses
they own or other older optics they might consider.  Too much emphasis seems
to be placed either on theoretical limits of an optic or on some kind of
'glow,' neither of which am I able to exceed.  Too little time or emphasis
ever seems to be placed on photographic technique (maybe that's a different
list).  Too little time is spent discussing practical application of
theoretical (e.g. depth of field) arguments which make for good imagemaking.
Too little time is spent extolling the virtues of tripods (full or the
little Leica ones) as the single most important device for achieving top
image quality.

My dad stuck his 12th ed. Leica Manual in my hand when I was still a young
boy in the '50s and '60s and said 'read.'  He never spoke of any 'glow' from
his Leica or Zeiss glass.  He never shot wall charts.  He just used the
stuff he had and applied the best knowledge of technique he could.  I've
been reading and doing the same for well over 30 years and, quite frankly,
all the issues about lens testing, glow, et al seem rather arcane and
senseless.  This glass is as good as it needs to be and always was.  And,
no, I don't think I'm missing something here that only someone else could
understand.

Load some film and shoot, my friends.

Curt

Elizabeth Mei Wong
Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A.
Christopher P.E. Miller

Pittsfield, Massachusetts
In the Berkshires, next door to Tanglewood