Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --------------988D16D6024D4FD6290CDE4C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan Borden wrote: > Mike, > > It really depends. You say that you are a really really good printer. Your > magazine is terrific and I believe you are a really good printer. If you are > as good as you say you are I am certain that I would be able to see the > differences between inferior and superior lenses. Are you able to bring out > the very best a lens has to offer? > > Jon Jon, you make it sound as if a Kodak Brownie lens is being compared with the latest aspherical apo etc. lens. You are already jumping the gun, before any comparison has even been done. making it sound like Leica lenses are the superior and all the other brands are inferior lenses. I personally , also do not believe, that a print ,- be it a landscape, a portrait or any other 3 dimensional object- , one can tell the difference between my Pentax 50 mm f1.4 SMC lenses and any of my Summicron lenses. Of course I have no intentions of using a Magnifying glass or Microscope to inspect the upper or lower outer corner. Why should I?. My eye automatically goes to the near centre of the picture. I go so far as to say, that if the far outer zones of a print are as sharp as the centre, the picture looses some of its impact. But that's just how I see it. Where I a surveyor or a detective, I would probably think different. I may then be required to take the magnifying glass to the corners, to see a border stone or a car number plate. But I am not, and I am interested only in the aesthetic look of my prints, like , I assume, so are the majority of amateur and professional photographers. Across the road where I work, a photo studio opened about 6 month ago. They do mainly weddings and portraits. When I go to lunch, I normally pass this shop and have a look the prints they have hanging for display. Boy they are just fabulous. All taken with a 15 or 20 year old Hasselblad 500 something or other with lenses of the same age. Zeiss Planars etc. Now if I started to check out the edges or any other part of the prints (about 36" X 50") They probably kick me of the premises. Rightly so. I am not saying one can not see the difference between a near perfect lens, and a inferior lens. It depends on the level of the inferiority of the other lens. You'll have to compare roughly equivalent lenses. Of course, there are time spans, when a certain lens type can claim superiority over others, but this advantage is normally short lived. Other manufacturers don't sit still either nor are they stupid. One should not assume, that a Leitz or Leica lens is automatically superior than any other brand. Going back to the 40s, 50s and 60s, Leitz had very good lenses. But comparing trhe most common Leitz lenses to some other brands, I could not really find Leitz lenses superior to all others. For example, I believe, the Voigtlander Color Scopar to be on par with the Leitz Elmar. Be it the F3.5 or the F2.8 versions. I sometimes had the feeling, the Color Scopar was the better of the two. The same goes with The Leitz F1.5 lenses. For what I have seen, The Zeiss Sonnar 50 mm F1.5 was a fair bit better than the Summarit.So was, I believe, the Voigtlander Nocton. When Leitz released the first version Summilux, It was of course an improvement. There is no point spending lots of money on a new design, if its not better. But I don't believe, that it was easily visible in comparison to the other mentioned brands. The same applies to the modern day lenses. Leica lenses may be tops, but other manufacturer are no beginners either. Erwin Puts scientific tests make a good read, and calm your nerves after you spend about 3 grand on a Noctilux and it tells you how it is the best F1 lens ever made. They may also be totally relevant to anybody doing highly technical prints where everything over the whole print has to be as sharp as possible. Ironically, most industrial photographers would not use a 35 mm Camera and lens for this task To me, however this is not the only criterion, There are really so many variables, including the state of my mood, at the time. No scientific test can give me this. I must agree with Mike, that if a print is made by a competent photographer, on the whole, it is not possible to tell which print is made with a Leica (Leitz) lens and which is not. There are just to many variables and to many personal preferences. However if I buy a Leica lens, I know,I bought an extremly good lens. The rest is up to me. Regards, Horst Schmidt - --------------988D16D6024D4FD6290CDE4C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> <P>Jonathan Borden wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Mike, <P>It really depends. You say that you are a really really good printer. Your <BR>magazine is terrific and I believe you are a really good printer. If you are <BR>as good as you say you are <B>I am certain that I would be able to see the</B> <BR><B>differences between inferior and superior lenses</B>. Are you able to bring out <BR>the very best a lens has to offer? <P>Jon</BLOCKQUOTE> Jon, you make it sound as if a Kodak Brownie lens is being compared with the latest aspherical apo etc. lens. You are already jumping the gun, before any comparison has even been done. making it sound like Leica lenses are the superior and all the other brands are <B>inferior </B>lenses. <P>I personally , also <B>do not</B> believe, that a print ,- be it a landscape, a portrait or any other 3 dimensional object- , one can tell the difference between my Pentax 50 mm f1.4 SMC lenses and any of my Summicron lenses. Of course I have no intentions of using a Magnifying glass or Microscope to inspect the upper or lower outer corner. Why should I?. My eye automatically goes to the near centre of the picture. I go so far as to say, that if the far outer zones of a print are as sharp as the centre, the picture looses some of its impact. But that's just how I see it. Where I a surveyor or a detective, I would probably think different. I may then be required to take the magnifying glass to the corners, to see a <BR>border stone or a car number plate. But I am not, and I am interested only in the aesthetic look of my prints, like , I assume, so are the majority of amateur and professional photographers. <P>Across the road where I work, a photo studio opened about 6 month ago. They do mainly weddings and portraits. When I go to lunch, I normally pass this shop and have a look the prints they have hanging for display. Boy they are just fabulous. All taken with <BR>a 15 or 20 year old Hasselblad 500 something or other with lenses of the same age. <BR>Zeiss Planars etc. Now if I started to check out the edges or any other part of the prints <BR>(about 36" X 50") They probably kick me of the premises. Rightly so. <BR> I am not saying one can not see the difference between a near perfect lens, and a inferior lens. It depends on the level of the inferiority of the other lens. You'll have to compare <BR>roughly equivalent lenses. <P>Of course, there are time spans, when a certain lens type can claim superiority over others, but this advantage is normally short lived. Other manufacturers don't sit still either nor are they stupid. <P>One should not assume, that a Leitz or Leica lens is automatically superior than any other brand. Going back to the 40s, 50s and 60s, Leitz had very good lenses. But comparing <BR> trhe most common Leitz lenses to some other brands, I could not really find Leitz lenses superior to all others. For example, I believe, the Voigtlander Color Scopar to be on par with the Leitz Elmar. Be it the F3.5 or the F2.8 versions. I sometimes had the feeling, the Color Scopar was the better of the two. The same goes with The Leitz F1.5 <BR>lenses. For what I have seen, The Zeiss Sonnar 50 mm F1.5 was a fair bit better than the Summarit.So was, I believe, the Voigtlander Nocton. When Leitz released the first version Summilux, It was of course an improvement. There is no point spending lots of money on a new design, if its not better. But I don't believe, that it was easily visible in comparison to the other mentioned brands. <P>The same applies to the modern day lenses. Leica lenses may be tops, but other manufacturer are no beginners either. <P>Erwin Puts scientific tests make a good read, and calm your nerves after you spend about 3 grand on a Noctilux and it tells you how it is the best F1 lens ever made. They may also be totally relevant to anybody doing highly technical prints where everything over the whole print has to be as sharp as possible. Ironically, most industrial photographers would not use a 35 mm Camera and lens for this task To me, however this is not the only criterion, There are really so many variables, including the state of my mood, at the time. No scientific test can give me this. <P>I must agree with Mike, that if a print is made by a competent photographer, on the whole, it is not possible to tell which print is made with a Leica (Leitz) lens and which is not. There are just to many variables and to many personal preferences. <P>However if I buy a Leica lens, I know,I bought an extremly good lens. The rest is up to me. <P>Regards, Horst Schmidt <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </HTML> - --------------988D16D6024D4FD6290CDE4C--