[Leica] Subjective lens impressions: Erwin's comments

[Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>]

Thank you, to all of you, for your kind words and encouragements.

It was fun to go thru boxes with prints and slides to collect an
image base for my lens' descriptions. Besides, it was less funny 
to go thru my dictionaries and look for words that might correspond
to what I wanted to say :)

Erwin Puts took additional time and effort to go thru my descriptions, 
and kindly completes them with valuable information based on his 
experience, knowledge and education.

Please, take his comments, which I publish below, as a necessary
supplement to my descriptions. Thank you.

Alf 
- -----------------------------------------------------
At 20:42 10.04.1998 +0200, Erwin Puts wrote to me:
>Hello Alfred,
>
>Congratulations on your reviews. You have presented a fine original view on
>the admiration for the relative performance of many Leica lenses. You
>surely do  know that I have to disagree with you on a number of statements,
>which I think are of a very factual and proveable nature.
>I do not want to start a yes/no debate on the LUG. Enough of these are
>already spending too much bandwidth. So please, do with my comments
>whatever you like.
>
><Summar)"Both effects (suppression of shadow details and "increased"
>unsharpness) result in the most impressive  3D or pictoral effect I've ever
>seen from a 50 mm, incl Noctilux." If the Noctilux is famous for something
>special it is the rendition of shadowdetails. You here compare the Noct to
>a lens of far lesse capabilities and give a statement that is at least
>debatable.
>
> <Summitar> "It shows it's best results between f 2.0 and f 4.0/ 4.5, but
>you may use it up to f 8 or f 9." That can not be true. This statement is
>not only in contradiction to Leitz literature but also my own findings on
>the bench and in practical picture taking.
>
><coll Summicron) "They show best results between f 2 and 5.6, and the optimum
>at f 4.0. Although they are "somehow" sharp at f 8" and "The colors are
>very saturated, almost as strong as in the current Summicron" Both
>proveable untrue.
>
><rigid Summicon> "The lens shows its best results between f 2 and f 8, with
>an optimum at f 4. It's sharpness is so impressing, that I feel it as
>comparable to the current Summicron at f 4 or f 8" No true. You really
>should ask Mr Kolsch his opinion if you do not trust me.
>
><Black 2/50 Summicron>"Compared to the rigid chrome Summicron, my lens had
>an increased contrast but a reduced sharpness. The contrast agreed to the
>current 1.4/50 M Summilux, and the sharpness to the 2/50 coll Summicron."
>This is really not possible.
>
><1.5/50 Summarit>"It shows it's best performance between f 1.5 and f 4,
>with an optimum atf 2.8, but you may use it up to f 8 with fine results.
>It's sharpness is better than from the coll Summicron, if contrasts are not
>extremely large,
>and comparable to the 1-st version 2/90 M Summicron at f 2.8" These remarks
>are not at allsupported by my own benchtests. here you really must review
>your test parameters.
>
>1.4/50 M Summilux>"It's sharpness is comparable
>to the 2/50 R Summicron, 1-st version, which is slightly better than
>the 2/90 M Summicron, 1-st version." and "It's contrast is higher than in
>the rigid chrome or 2/50 R Summicron (1-st version).." here you are mixing
>up too many variables.
>
><1.0/50 Noctilux>" At f 2.8, the sharpness is lower than
>from the 1.5/50 Summarit, maybe comparable to the 2/90 M Summicron (1-st
>version) at f 2.0 or a 1981 2/90 R Summicron at f 2.0" These remarks are
>not true.
>
>This a long list. I do know you have different standards than mine and
>there is room for many opinions. The remarks I singled out are statements
>of fact and therefore can be measured. As always there are shades of
>opinion, but some facts are just that. The optical bench does not lie and
>when the coll Summ improves on all optical dimensions untill f/8, than the
>optimum is f/8 and not f/4 which is also highly improbable, given the state
>of the art of design in those days.
>But as said before. I am not the person to start a "I am right you are
>wrong" thread. Still I feel compelled to tell you that I am individually
>most unhappy with the above remarks as I know they do not justice to the
>relative performance of the Leica lenses you have compared.
>Erwin


- --------------------------------------------------

Alfred Breull
http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/mfformat/c-mf.htm