Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Hi all!
This a bit confusing for me because I did some test shots with my Leica
lenses - same subject, same size image with 35mm Summilux (supposedly n=
ot
up to Leica standards - whatever they are), 90mm Summicron (supposed no=
t to
be very sharp) and 50mm Summicron (supposed to be very, very sharp inde=
ed).
The result: no difference in shapness and contrast whatsoever. Maybe I
should get a better loupe?
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
my=F6s suomeksi
- ----------
> From: Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>
> To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: RE: [Leica] lens evaluations
> Date: 23. elokuuta 1998 15:17
>=20
> Erwin,
>=20
> Thanks again for your minutiously gathered data. I am totally of your=
=20
> opinion regarding the non-relevence of general statements on the opti=
cal=20
> performances of lenses covering whole ranges from any manufacturer.
>=20
> It is a pity you started the post by arguing with statements by Jim=20
> Williams reproduced by others in the present discussion list, seeming=
ly=20
> without his knowledge (or I missed something somewhere). These statem=
ents
> were made under other circumstances, on his Web site and/or within ot=
her=20
> threads in other groups, and seemingly with other priorities than opt=
ical
> benchmarks in mind. I find it quite unfair that these quotes have bee=
n=20
> passed on to us the way they were. I personally regard Jim Williams a=
s
one=20
> of the most honest and documented Internet contributors in the 35mm R=
F=20
> field, and his contributions on Usenet or on his Web site, as well as=
his
> availability to help out users on very concrete real-life issues, hav=
e
been=20
> very precious to me, and I believe to many others. Just like your=20
> contributions, Erwin, in your own fields of interest, which have led =
to
all=20
> my M lenses buying decisions (financially, I do not know if I ought t=
o=20
> thank you or blame you for that though....).
>=20
> To go back to the point you make on brand generalisations, and with w=
hich
I=20
> agree through my own fragmental and empiric experience, I must add th=
at
it=20
> seems unfortunately a temptation for some of the most vocal Leica fan=
s on
> the Net to issue such general statements, imposing on the reader the
point=20
> of view that the red dot brand hardly ever produces anything less tha=
n=20
> perfection, in particular in the optical field. There really is a
tendency=20
> to show symptoms of 'fixed beliefs in Leica superiority', to the poin=
t of
> agressively deriding anyone questionning such a belief. I understand =
very
> well this could get on the nerves of less biased users, and it certai=
nly=20
> gets on mine. Though it does not prevent me from also understanding t=
he=20
> temptation of excessive brand loyalty in a field where many people sp=
end=20
> much more than a reasonable portion of their disposable income.
>=20
> So, I'll stop here by thanking you again for bringing in some sanity,
facts=20
> and figures to an over-heated debate: you just made me like my 50mm=20
> Summicron-M a little more....
>=20
> Friendly regards
> Alan
> Brussels-Belgium
>=20
> PS A pity you have not had the opportunity to put the G line of lens=
es=20
> through the same motions as the M line. Hard facts are really lacking=
in=20
> that field...
>=20
> PPS Have you ever explained, Erwin, your position regarding the noti=
on
of=20
> 'bokeh' ? And if so could you pleae be kind enough as to repost to me=
=20
> privately your own analysis of that notion ? Thanks beforehand.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sunday, August 23, 1998 10:17 AM, Erwin Puts [SMTP:imxputs@knoware=
.nl]
> wrote:
> > Recently a long quote by Jim Williams (Contax G fame) hs been
circulated=20
> on
> > the LUG. I at first resisted temptation to react. Still some commen=
t is
> > appropriate I assume. First of all his text is full of statements, =
not
a
> > single one prooved or explained. He is also demagogially clever
("superb"
> > Zeiss lenses versus "computer designed" Summicrons). It is however =
not
my
> > goal to refute Mr Williams. He seems convinced of his opinion and s=
o be
> it.
> > At stake is the reputation of Leica or its "reputational myth-makin=
g".=20
> And
> > the large group of Leica users who "because of their own fixed
> > beliefs in Leica superiority -- certainly weren't about to disabuse=
the
> > masses of their illusions".
> > So are leica lenses superb or just front runners or me-too products=