Re: [Leica] Test by proxy

[John <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

Steve LeHuray wrote:
> 
> But Mike, I was never insecure about any of my lenses until I joined this
> group and started reading members comments and going to Erwin's and Gandy's
> reviews. My old Summicron collapsible seemed to produce really good results,
> but, still...so I went and bought a new current version 50mm Summicron. And
> hard to see the difference, if any. And I was happy with my old Summaron
> 35mm except at f3.5 it seemed a mite slow, but, with excellent results from
> 16x20 blowups, but still ... so I went out and spent alot of money on a new
> Summilux 35 f1.4. And except for the larger aperture hard to see much
> difference. So what's the point? Well I have been a photographer for 30
> years all with Nikons and have had over 1,000 photos published; I have shot
> Goldie Hawn, Gregory Peck, Burt Reynolds, Tiny Tim, Steven Spielberg and
> even President George Bush in the oval office. I could go on. All of these
> years, believe it or not, I just went out and took pictures. And guess what?
> I NEVER read ANY photo magazines. Then I discovered Leica, and, the Leica
> MYSTIQUE. Such enthusiam. I had to find out everything about them I started
> to buy books, I searched the web, I joined the LUG and LEG. I took many
> pictures with the Leicas and compared them with thousands of Nikor
> pictures.....hmmm....must be these old Leica lenses 'cause I cant see much
> difference. Then, it became, must be I need some new Leica lenses. Now it
> has become.... maybe I will go back to blissfully taking pictures without
> reading all this stuff because I cannot possibly keep up with it all.
> Steve
> Annapolis
> 
> ----------
> >From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> >Subject: [Leica] Test by proxy
> >Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2000, 10:34 AM
> >
> 
> >>>>IF you want accurate
> >test results to see what YOUR lenses will do, you have to test them
> >yourself<<<
> >
> >
> >But Stephen, you forget--people would rather not look at their own
> >results!! People are often more interested in how a lens rates with
> >others than how it behaves for them. That's the only reason I can think
> >of why people regularly ask me for my opinions about lenses that they
> >themselves ALREADY OWN!
> >
> ><g>
> >
> >--Mike
> >
Hi! All, I am new to this list, but I have been using  and loving Leica
cameras for over forty years, screw mounts, Ms and yes even Rs.  I also have
used Canon, Nikon, Contax, Olympus, medium format, large format and many more.
 I have been called a photo floozy. Looking back over my negatives and slides,
unless I remember, I cannot tell which camera exposed them except for my
Retina llc which seems to make slides quite warm.
This argument, " Can one really tell if finished print is made from a negative
or slide exposed through a Leica or Leitz lens?" has been going since I got my
first Leica in 1957 and probably even longer than that.  Isn't the real test
not the lens, but the lens, camera, film, development, etc.?  How meaningful
can it be to split hairs over laboratory lens tests if your getting older and
can't hand hold as well as you used to?  How meaningful is it to split lines
per mm if your using a coke bottle enlarging lens?  How meaningful are the
contrast figures if your development/ exposure is not controlled for each and
every negative or you forget to clean all the fingerprints off the lens and
forget to bring the right hood?  Even Leica cameras are real world
compromises. Their forte is medium to short focal length photography, and they
become very cumbersome doing long focus and close-up work. Testing a lens may
be useful in avoiding a real dog, but there are not too many lenses,
especially single focal length lenses that are not capable of professional
results (what ever that is).  Beyond better than adequate sharpness corner to
corner and great contrast the one real world parameter I can think of that
would be important to scientific photographers would be the rendering of the
color spectrum in repeatable and predictable response curves from lens to lens
within a maker's line-up. 

I submit that this leica look has more to do with the lens camera combination
than just the lens.  The M leica has been ergonomic years longer then the
competition.  Range finder cameras, especially the M ranger finder are easier
for these tired old eyes to focus that an SLR, though with modern bright
screens and fast lenses this difference has been narrowed.  The lack of all
that machinery slapping around inside the camera, mirror up, aperture down,
open shutter, mirror down, aperture open, and that damn motor drive and auto
focus lag, all contribute to image sharpness, though all are minuscule
differences, their cumulative effect may in fact help one to produce sharper
and more contrasty negatives with a Leica M camera.  But then again maybe not.
 Just my two cents worth.
John from Boston