RE: [Fwd: [Leica] Voigtlander Ultra-Wide - Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical]

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Horst - I have no idea whether his tests are any good or not....But has it
not occured to you that in terms of what appears to be possible now in
optical design, that a lens like this is, indeed, at the limits of possible
optical perfection....I know it's not a Leica lens. And I know it's not a
German lens, but it certainly seems possible to me that it good be as good
as it gets for a lens of this type......And, as to his mistake with the
Leica comparison, presumably he was comparing it to the wides lens Leica has
or does make?

Oh, as to the Leica lenses of the 50s.....If we were to put them on a modern
1-20 scale, it seems to me we'd be talking maybe 5/20....not 10.....;-)

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of A.H.SCHMIDT
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:07 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Leica] Voigtlander Ultra-Wide - Heliar 12mm f/5.6
> Aspherical]
>
>
> >
>
> Simon lamb wrote:
>
> > Amateur Photographer in the UK has tested this lens and I
> thought some of
> > you may be interested in a snip from the verdict.
> >
> > "The Voigtlander 12mm is a truly excellent lens that features
> outstanding
> > optical quality that closely rivals, if not exceeds, the
> quality of the more
> > expensive Leica brand"
> >
> > There is a three page article containing quite a bit of detail
> regarding the
> > build and optical quality, the depth of field, the sharpness and the
> > vignetting that can occur.
> >
> > The test scores were:
> >
> > Optical quality:           28/30
> > Ease of use:              27/30
> > Construction quality:  19/20
> > Value for money:        18/20
> >
> > 92% test score.
> >
> > Simon
>
>   Wow, what a test. To compare an existing - with a non existing
> lens. That
> doesn't happen that often. He probably has a whole cupboard full
> of non existing
> equipment, for which he paid a fortune. Hell compare all the other  real
> equipment he receives, to the ones in his  (empty) cupboard.
>
> This may be the latest way of reviewing anything and everything.
> Example: The new Toyota Corolla is al lot cheaper and most
> probably faster, than
> the equivalent Ferrari.
>
> Then again, the guy may just been on drugs that day, or just
> plain drunk, or
> couldn't think of anything sensible to say to fill up his paper,  or,  and
> that's my guess: He is just plain stupid.
>
> Now to the actual review:
>
> Optical quality:           28/30--- 28 out of 30. that does not
> give us much
> room for future          improvement. The 30 out of 30 will soon
> be reached.
> what then?
>
> Ease of use:              27/30
>
> Construction quality:  19/20---  Boy 19 out of 20. What does he
> give the 1950
> and 60's
> Leica lenses/  25 out of 20.
>
> Value for money:        18/20--   this is a subjective measure.
> If I want and
> need a 12mm
> lens, then it is 20/20, if I don't its a lot less.
>
> Really  if one has to use a number system, then I could maybe
> understand 10 or
> 12 out of 20 for a test. But 18 or 19 out of 20, does not give a
> true picture.
> It  implies, that in future hardly any improvement can be made.
>
> If this bloke was around in the 1950's, he would have given the
> Summicrons and
> Summiluxes 19 out of 20. What about the large improvements since?
> It would not
> fit in to his numbering system.
>
>
> Regards, Horst Schmidt
>
>