Re: [Leica] Gandy, Puts, Objectivity, etc.

[Robert Appleby <robert.appleby@tin.it>]

>>>>>
This is most obvious when he ends up contradicting himself in the conclusion
to a test which clearly shows another product superior to the Leica
equivalent.  His detailed review of the the Ricoh 50/2.8 certainly point to
that lens's superiority to the Elmar:  "Its optimum performance at f/2,8 is
simply better than the Elmar-M 2.8/50 and even at its worst setting would
kill the older version of the Elmar."  His review of the Skoper 25/4 also
suggests its superiority to the Elmarit.  *Then,* in the final paragraphs,
we see this:

"The excellent performance of the Ricoh and Skopar are partly the result of
the modest aperture. The higher aberration content will not be visibly
buried as this will be among other things in the depth of field.

"The generally weaker performance in the field is also a characteristic that
distinguishes these lenses from the Leica lenses."



Excuse me?  The "objective" test had *nothing whatsoever* to do with
performance in the field.  In other words, if the rigorous scientific
results go against Leica, we have to fall back on subjective judgments
(always) to decide that the Leica lens is in fact superior.
<<<<

It's an interesting review. I think that what Erwin is saying here is that
the best possible performance of the Ricoh lens - which is better than that
of the Leica competitor - is marred by inferior mechanical parts. He often
makes reference to the need for mechanical aspects to be up to the
standards of the purely optical design.

"The Hexanon 2,4/50 is a Jekyll and Hyde poposition. With its slightly
loose tube it is a questionable offering. I made my comments based on the
optimum position and assuming that quality control will tighten up, it has
the potential to be one of the first contemporary lenses to be a threat to
a Leica lens. Its optimum performance at f/2,8 is simply better than the
Elmar-M 2.8/50 and even at its worst setting would kill the older version
of the Elmar."

Again: "Stopping down the Elmar becomes the equal of the Hexanon, but at
2.8 the Hexanon is indisputably the winner. If its mechanical parts were
improved. Here we have a lens that challenges the classical and redesigned
Tessar design."

Thus it might be that "in the field" in the case of this lens does refer to
the performance in actual practice, compromised as it is by the loose
barrel. And this is surely a consideration.

However, I have to agree that the final conclusion, in this review, is not
totally clear. I don't get the feeling that it's a cover up, though, do
you? If anything, Erwin praises this lens very highly.

(No doubt by the time this post hits LUG mailboxes around the world, this
topic will have been chewed over a hundred times, but I get the digest,
which involves a time lag.)


>>>>>
or -- and we all *should* agree
on this -- a tad less wonderful than earlier versions of the same equipment.
<<<<<<

Well, I can't agree with that, sorry. I've yet to see any earlier body or
lens that was genuinely more functional or higher quality than the current
ones, especially when it comes to the lenses. (I'm not talking about the
R's here). The older stuff may be funkier and nice to go ooh and aah over,
but the newer stuff just does the job better.

Rob.


Robert Appleby
V. Bellentani 36
41100 MO
Italy
tel. (+39) 059 303436
mob. (+39) 0348 336 7990