Re: [Leica] Lens test

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

I agree wholeheartedly.   

This test is not meant to simulate laboratory conditions.  These pictures
were taken (several years ago, and I recall posting them at the time) the
way I always take pictures; handheld at mid range f stops.  And under these
conditions, photographs taken by Minolta, leica, Nikon are essentially the
same (just look at the handfull of guesses received so far; they can't all
be correct!).  I could repeat the test at f2 and under more stringent
conditions ( I do own a ND filter for my summilux that could help out), but
I think it would be a waste of my time.  Speaking for myself, I don't care
if under 20x mangification of an ideally exposed negative I can distinguish
one lens manufacturer from another.

And remember, this is all in response to a somewhat condescending remark
about the quality of Minolta optics.  If the inferiority of Minolta optics
can only be measured by someone like Erwin with his expertise and testing
equipment, they can't be THAT bad, can they?

One test I will do under somewhat more exacting conditions is to compare my
APO 90 with my tele-elmarit-M.    I plan on doing a series of photographs
under varying circumstances (with tripod), to help me make up my mind to
sell the TE.  

Dan C.

At 04:07 PM 23-08-00 +0200, Erwin Puts wrote:
>To 'test' lenses all stopped down to 5.6 and then shooting handheld, is not
>the most meaningful act and conclusions based on these results are bound to
>be valueless. It has been repeated so often, that at 5.6 all current and
>well corrected lenses perform very well and whatever differences in fine
>detail rendition and micro contrast are available, the handheld shooting, by
>vibration and focusing inaccuracy will degrade these differences. I know
>that many persons assume that a practical user test in normal shooting
>situations is to be preferred as it seems to simulate the normal use of a
>lens. In a way it does and if the user is satisfied wih such a test, any
>argument or proof that a lens from one of the 4 or 5 topmarques is better/as
>good/not as good as another one is a pleasurable but futile way of killing
>time.
>
>
>Erwin
>
>
>
>