Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Erwin Qualifications
From: "Hoyen ~simontart~" <simontart@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 04:13:15 EDT

"David W. Almy" wrote:

"B) Good for Eisenstadt. I'm glad for him and his contributions. Just
because it was good for him, however, doesn't mean it was right for
everyone. This is not THE method I choose to use to select lenses.

C) If lens performance has no bearing on the image, then we all should
be using Holgas and concentrating only on the image."

I think you missed the point.  What I believe Peter was trying to get at, is 
that the only definitive way you can be sure that YOUR lens is performing up 
to standards is if YOU test it using YOUR OWN controlled circumstances.  
Eisenstaedt didn't give a rat's hiney about anyone else's lens tests.  He 
tested a new lens himself, and if he liked it, he kept it.  Take my 35/2 
Summicron-R for example.  This lens is so sharp, with color and bokeh so 
beautiful, that nothing Erwin could possibly say would ever make me get rid 
of this lens, not while I shoot Leica R.  I don't need anybody to tell me 
how many lpmm this lens does.  Not only is it irrelevant, but I really 
couldn't care less.

I appreciate Erwin's efforts because they do provide a newbie with a guide 
as to what he/she MIGHT expect out of a particular lens.  However, there are 
some flaws: because Erwin only tests 1 or 2 or 3 (if even?) samples of each 
lens, not only is the practical usefulness of the information debatable (as 
demonstrated by the LUG discussions as of late), but statistically 
questionable.  As most people are aware, sample to sample variation does 
occur, even within the prestigious stable of (gasp) Leica.  I experienced 
this myself: my own thorough testing of two samples of the "legendary" 
35/1.4-M ASPH showed them both inferior to my 35/2-R at f/2 in all respects 
that I could see (sharpness, out-of-focus, vignetting, contrast), yet every 
other "test" I have ever seen rates the ASPH above the f/2-R, especially 
near wide open.  Eisie was smart, eh?  :)

I do admit that I read all of Erwin's lens reports.  I think his technical 
prowess comes through, and heck, they are dang-it-all enjoyable to read.  I 
just have a salt shaker beside my computer at all times...  :)


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com