Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 8:06 PM -0700 8/21/01, James Morehouse wrote:
>I've used both the Leica and OM systems for over 20 years.  The 
>results here don't contradict my personal experience.
>
>Jim Morehouse

<snip>

>>Strange results, and testing, to say the least!
>>
>>--

While I have used some Olympus equipment (most Pen lenses and some 
OM), and I always found them to be generally competitive with Pentax, 
Minolta, Canon and Nikon, I never found them to stand above those 
other makes, nor a number of older Leitz products. I haven't used any 
Olympus products for 15 years so I will not comment further.

To things I have used and have extensive knowledge of:

1. The Micro Nikkor 55mm/2.8 AIS scores significantly higher than the 
90 A-A. This is a huge surprise to me, and I'm sure to most others 
that have used these two lenses.

2. The Minolta MC 58/1.2 Rokkor scores about the same as the 90 A-A. 
Again; far from my experience.

3. The 28-85 3.5-4.5 Nikkor at 85mm is essentially the same quality 
as the 90 A-A! Hah!


Methodology:

4. The tester gets significantly different results from mirror up and 
diapghragm pre-fire. This means that the support is not all that 
strong. If he is using the same support for his 'best' results the 
assumption has to be that with further stability he could get even 
better results. If I test lenses for my own purposes the support is 
going to be steady/solid enough that the mirror, diaphragm, shutter 
and trucks going by aren't going to make any difference. A whole 
different order of support is going to be used. Otherwise I am 
testing on the support, shutter, diaphragm mechanism, etc. and lens 
as part of a system test, and I cannot/will not make conclusions 
about the lens on that test. Have a look at the test of the 250/2 
Zuiko. The excuse that this is a heavy lens and therefore hard to get 
steady is absolutely no excuse. You just bolt it to some concrete if 
you really mean to test the _lens_.

5. He views the film projected on a screen/surface with a (Rollei?) 
projector fitted with a zoom projection lens. Not exactly state of 
the art in analysis.

Fujichrome 64T is a decent enough film, but not the best either.

The net result of the methodology lapses noted (there may be others, 
as he doesn't go into that much detail) means that most lenses will 
be brought to a fairly low common denominator, which you can see if 
you look at a number of the results. Except for a few deviations, 
most lenses that you would expect to be useable end up with up with 
one or three A's at the edges and a couple at the middle. The only 
lenses that get significantly better results are some Zuikos. That 
makes me a bit suspicious as well. Some are definitely excellent 
lenses, but considering the results he achieved for an extremely good 
non-Zuiko lens, the 90 A-A, the relative standings are suspicious.

Also note that many Zuikos got a top mark, or at least an A- at f/22. 
If you only deal with what is theoretically possible, saying that no 
lens achieved a better value at any aperture than what the best lens 
achieved at f/22 means the bar was set too low.

I don't think these tests can be taken very seriously, even if you 
are very satisfied with your Olympus lenses. I'm very happy with many 
of my non-Leica lenses (which outnumber my Leica lenses by a wide 
margin), but I try to be objective about what they can do for me.

I think all you can say that these are the results he obtained using 
his methodology. Take it or leave it.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com