[Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 3:21 PM -0400 6/24/04, B. D. Colen wrote:
>Come on, Henning - I would think that when reviewing a new ASPH
>Summilux, whatever the focal length, one would provide some comparison
>with other Summilux lenses

OK. So that's what you would like to see in his report. Since that 
sort of thing isn't done that often, and especially since the lens 
design is quite different than either of the other Summilux lenses, I 
don't find that omission strange.

>  - particularly because the 35 ASPH is so
>staggeringly good, as is the older 75. Great, the new 50 is better than
>the old 50 Summilux. Big whoop.

He wrote that it is better than the _Summicron_, as well as the old Summilux.

>So, arguably, is the 50 Nokton for $2K
>less. The question really is, is the new lens worth an investment of
>$2.5K - does it produce images that compare to the Summilux lenses on
>either side of it in the line-up. I think the answer's pretty obvious.
>Because if the answer is "yes," you can bet that would have been
>included in the review.

I think you're trying way too hard to read things into Erwin's report 
that really aren't in there, and reading even more into the fact of 
them not being there. Just possibly we should wait for a bit and see 
what other people think of the lens, since you find Erwin's writings 
so hard to take. :-)

>As to the difference in focal lengths - 35 is standard for me. I can get
>closer with it than with the 50, I can crop in to get a 50-like image if
>I want to; I get a bit more depth of field at 1.4 but can still isolate
>subjects; and I can get more air, or more subjects into the frame,
>without stepping back. But I realize we all have different preferences
>and needs. :-)
>
>B.D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
>Henning Wulff
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:06 PM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: [Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup
>
>
>At 8:50 PM -0400 6/23/04, B. D. Colen wrote:
>>Speaking of subjectivity - Am I the only one to note that not only did
>>the recent review of the new Summilux 50 not compare it to the 35
>>Summilux ASPH, but it also did not compare it at all to the 75
>>Summilux. I would think that for $2500 this new 50 should at a minimum
>>produce images equal to that of the 35 and 75. No?
>
>Not only did he fail to compare it to the 35 and 75's, he also failed
>to compare it to all the other focal lengths.
>
>As most testers have noted at some time or other, you can't
>meaningfully compare lenses with different focal lengths. For your
>own use you might like to do a comparison between two lenses that you
>tend to use interchangeably, but that is different. I, like a lot of
>other people, don't use 35's and 50's interchangeably so the
>comparison would be rather pointless.
>
>If I bought the new 50, I would be very unhappy to discover that it
>produced images equal to my 35 Summilux ASPH, when what I wanted was
>a narrower angle of view.....:-)
>
>As far as image quality is concern, note that Erwin wrote that at all
>apertures that the 50 Summilux and Summicron have in common, the
>Summilux is better.
>
>--
>     *            Henning J. Wulff
>    /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>   /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>   |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


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