Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?
From: "James Morehouse" <jdmorehouse@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 20:06:44 -0700

I've used both the Leica and OM systems for over 20 years.  The results here 
don't contradict my personal experience.

Jim Morehouse


>From: Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is 
>the R4?
>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:50:49 -0700
>
>At 10:01 AM -0700 8/21/01, Peter A. Klein wrote:
>>  > The Olympus OM system also has a good reputation for macro work.  The 
>>50
>>>  mm f/2 and 90 mm f/2 are reputed to be the equal of Leica glass.  The 
>>>4T
>>>  body is available (used) for about the same $$ as the Contax, and a "2"
>>>  series for around $200.  You could also pick up a 50 mm /f3.5 for $160,
>>>  and get a 50 mm f/1.8 for another $30 for non-macro work.  The 50 will
>>>  get down to 1:2 on its own, and 1:1 with a 25 mm extension tube.
>>>
>>>  See this site for a detailed OM lens tests:
>>>
>>  > http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>>
>>I'm glad someone mentioned Gary Reese's OM lens test site.  While the
>>site is largely devoted to lenses for the Olympus OM system, Gary has
>>several Leitz/Leica lenses on the site as comparisons.  There's also a
>>few Nikkor, Canon, and Minolta and Pentax lenses.  Kyle's favorite
>>bargain rangefinder (Canonet QL-17) is there, too, and it doesn't come
>>off badly.
>>
>>Gary uses a large USGS topographic map of the Grand Canyon as the test
>>target at 1:40. The target has low-contrast as well as high-contrast
>>components.  He evaluates the resulting slides on a good projector.  The
>>result is a very consistent and real-world evaluation.  He also shows
>>how the mirror and automatic diaphragm on an SLR significantly affect
>>picture quality.
>>
>>Anyway, if you want to see how a few Leica lenses compared to the
>>others, check out Gary's site.  He includes the 50mm Summicron-M and 90
>>APO Summicron-M, and the 28mm Elmarit-R and 90mm Summicron-R.
>>
>>Of course, bokeh, "glow," "look," and Pride of Leica Ownership are not
>>included in the tests.  :-)
>>
>>--Peter Klein
>>Seattle, WA
>
>Strange results, and testing, to say the least!
>
>--
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Replies: Reply from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?)