Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Martin Howard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Erwin Puts wrote: > > Lens testing should not be representative of the demands of real life > photographers in real life photo shooting sessions. Erwin, you are certainly very knowledgeable with regards to optics and have forgotten more about lens testing than I'll ever know, but this statement is pure and simple nonsense. If lens testing is in no way representative of real life picture taking, then ecological validity goes right out the window. The result will be that we will get equipment that performs superbly on the tests devised to measure performance, but will be irrelevant for real life picture taking ability. <<<<<<<<<< Amen, Martin, amen! I tried writing and positng a similar response over the weekend but never found the right words. Because for me enjoyment and satisfaction of a photograph is an aesthetic, not a technical experience. Knowing how a lens performs on a test bench is a useful guide to a potentially expensive purchase. But knowing what I can expect with the lens in my hands in invaluable. For instance, I was reviewing a photo last night which, if made with a 50 mm Nikkor, would have been a failure. Not because the Nikkor couldn't deliver equal sharpness or similar detail. But because a smooth background swirl of colors and shapes was critical to making the shot graphically pleasing -- a smoothness which the 50 mm Nikkor is incapable of producing. Sharpness in the corners of the shot was irrelevant. However, the out-of-focus character was every bit as critical as the rendering of what was in focus, because it was an integral component of the scene. I'm not looking for lenses that can necessarily reproduce the hairs on a tick in the top left corner of a slide. And I'm not going to carry one lens that can capture those hairs and another that delivers the smooth background rendering. I'm going to settle on the lens which I expect will provide most satisfying compromise in the majority of situations where I expect to be using it. (Understand, I'm not saying I don't like the newest M lenses. I've not used them, so I don't know if I'd like them. But if -- IF -- as some posts have suggested, that smoothness is being sacrificed, then the quality that draws me to Leica -- a quality prevalent in lenses like the 75 Summilux -- is being forsaken. And forsaken at the same time Zeiss lenses, such as the Contax G line, maintain it while continuing to deliver exceptionally satisfying sharpness.) Larry