Re: Lens tests.

[Tom Hodge <thodge@charweb.org>]

Dr.  Volow,

With all due respect, lens charts are wonderful for process-type lenses 
such as photocopier lenses and so on.

Camera lenses are for taking pictures of a 3 dimensional world.  As 
Gunter Osterloh repeats it in his book "Leica M - the advanced school 
of photography", to judge a Leica lens by shooting strictly lens charts, 
the user will, literally and figuratively, "get the wrong picture."

I've never shot a lens chart with a Leica lens.  I DID shoot a
side-by-side with my 35mm f/2.0 Canon FD-SSC against the same animal with
Zeiss T* "clothing" some years back and the tests were hands-down
conclusive that the Canon was so far superior to the Zeiss it wasn't even
funny.  And it wasn't even close on "quality" based on the film we both
examined in great detail.  My friend was ready to charge back into the
camera stoe with entire Contax system in hand and make them eat every last
piece. 

I think we all know the Zeiss T* line-up is superior optical system across
the board.  I believe their lofty, well-deserved reputation; I sure don't
need any lens charts to be convinced. Whether on Hasselblads, Rollei's,
Yashica's or whatever, you can pretty well count Zeiss T* to bring quality
to the table.  The Canon lens IS dynamite, alright - especially given the
price difference.  But in the real world of 3-D photography, the Zeiss T*
held it's own against anything thrown up against it.  Transparencies had a
magical brilliance and "glow" about them normally associated with "you
know what" lenses.  They looked awesome!  AWESOME! 

So much for lens charts.

Besides, I've never seen any shots of them matted and framed so what's the 
point? 

Attempting to verify the incredible optical quality of Leitz lenses
without advanced degrees in theoretical and applied optical sciences and
some whacked-out "Star Wars"-type laboratory might be not only futile but
embarrassing.  Like looking for the needle in the haystack, if you don't
know what you're looking for or where and how to look, you will either
find the wrong thing, nothing at all or - worse - find the most tiny of
needles but the conclusions lead you to believe it is the size of a 2 x 4
timber. 

Dr. Volow, I can see you're up the road at the Duke Psych center.  Bad pun
intended but.......performing tests like this could drive a person
stark-raving crazy!  It's like taking a brand new Mercedes-Benz apart
piece-by-piece to see if they put it together right in the first place. 
Just drive the car. 

Same thing here, sir.  If the lens is "clean" and in good shape - a new
one leaves no doubt - just throw all of your efforts and skills into
shooting great pictures of this incredibly beautiful State of North
Carolina we live in!  You can argue with every point so far except THAT 
one!!!!

You could be wasting some really primo time playing games with bizarre
lens charts when you're what - 3, 3 1/2 hours from Pamlico Sound and the
Outer Banks - some of the most stunningly beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous
photographic ocean territory on the face of the Earth?  Hmmmmmmmm......

Best wishes,

Tom Hodge
thodge@charweb.org
Davidson (Lake Norman), North Carolina 

 

On Fri, 17 May 1996, Michael Volow wrote:

> I am also interested in doing lens tests of Leica lenses. I have 
> evaluated several different lens test systems (Modern Photo 1968 USAF, 
> Edmund Sci Co, a third proprietary chart [can't remember name]) and the 
> Rochester Institute of Technology alphanumeric charts. The RIT system 
> seems far and away the best to me, since the give you a ruler to estimate 
> precise reduction ratios (instead of vague lens-target distance) and also 
> have low, medium and high contrast targets. Any one else interested?
> 
> Michael Volow, M.D. (mvolo@acpub.duke.edu)
> Department of Psychiatry, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC
> 919 286 0411 Ext 6933
> 
> 
>