Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]...was reviewed for the first time in a British magazine published yesterday. Roger Hicks informed British Journal of Photography readers over a two page spread that essentialy the lens was very good indeed. Although he acknowledges that resolution tests are far from conclusive he wrote: "For resolution testing (on Ilford 100 Delta) the camera was a mere 60cm from the test charts. The targets used were the old Polysales types that are relatively low in contrast, about 32:1 (1.5 log density range), and giving a direct reading in lpmm when photographed at 50x the focal length, hence the 60cm distance. The resolution figures are clearly of limited relavence in any absolute sense being partly subjective and also affected by film choice, development conditions, subject contrast and more. But even so, the readings obtained (f5.6 100/65++ f8 100/65++ f11 100/65++ f16 80/65 f22 65+/50+) are impressive by abny standard, for any lens film combination. The recorded 100 lpmm on the film wide open is as good as anyone could expect, and 65++ (a very easy 65lpmm) could easily be 80- (80lpmm with a bit of optimism). With a lens having this angle of coverage, such figures defy belief The lens is at its best from wide open to f8, deteriorating very slightly from f11 or so and rapidly thereafter: the only reason to use f22 is for trick shgts with extreme depth of field." Much of the text details the facts that can be grasped from the technical data released so far but he does amplify his tests with some judgements on performance. "In real world use flare is far lower than it has any right to be and curvilinear distortion is simply negligible. Coma too is extremely well controlled. [...] Equally inevitably there is some vignetting and even though the designer seems to have made use of the Slussarev effect* to reduce it, with such an extreme angle of view it is detectable. Often the pictorial effect is actually attractive." He goes on to conclude that the main drawback is that of accurate framing resulting from the non-reflex mode of working. Close foreground detail can often be quite different between the viewfinder and the lens's viewpoint. Whereas the Voigtlander has the accessory shoe directly above the lens mount, we Leica users will have to move the camera both upwards and sideways to achieve the same framing seen through the finder. (c) BJP 06/09/00 Jem * Having tried to locate a definition of the Slussarev effect, I sadly can't. Can anyone elucidate?