Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Natham, Hear, hear! Cheers Jayanand On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> wrote: > My immediate reaction to all this, admittedly after several glasses of > various quality alcoholic beverages: who cares? Show me the pictures! > > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Seth Rosner wrote: > >> Hello friends! >> >> I unsubscribed from the LUG months and months ago as I was traveling and >> couldn't bear to return from a trip to 1500+ LUG emails. I resubscribed to >> the digest and hadn't figured out how to respond to a thread and inject my >> 2c. Happily, I just returned from the LHSA annual meeting in Seattle that >> embraced a wonderful LUG dinner last Friday at one of the best fish and >> seafood restaurants I've ever experienced; with Mark and Henning and Greg >> and Tom + Tuulikki and Peter and I'm certain to leave some good friends >> out >> so need to leave out several. They told me how to respond to a thread and >> I >> hope I have remembered the key to lugging-in. >> >> And as some of you know, I cannot leave my mitts off a Summicron debate, >> especially when it involves Erwin Puts. I'm so out of it that until I read >> this thread, I had not realized that he has left being a Leica Camera tout >> and become a Zeiss/Cosina tout. Fascinating. P.S. I learned in Seattle >> that >> marc small has left the LUG so I am more or less safe since it was marc >> who >> several years ago threatened me with a defamation action for having >> written >> critically of Erwin's evaluations. >> >> So I took the time to look at Erwin's report on this Zeiss lens. Here is >> what he writes about this lens in Phase 2: >> >> "Planar-T 2/50 ZM >> "For several generations the Planar design has tried to challenge the >> Summicron 50mm and never became as good. Now at last we have a lens that >> equals the Summicron-M 50mm and is even a trace better in the curvature of >> field area. The optical performance of the Planar is simply as good as >> that >> what can be expected form the Leica Summicron. The Double-Gauss design has >> been studied exhaustingly and it is now possible to equal but not surpass >> the Summicron design as long as you stay within the D-G limits. It is >> worth >> some study to note that the curved elements of the Planar bring no >> significant improvements in comparison to the many planar surfaces of the >> current Summicron. >> "This conclusion makes the claim of some Leica collectors, that the >> current Summicron is a lesser design than the all-curved predecessor, >> somewhat hollow." >> >> Many of you know that I am enamored of and have studied the 50/2 DR/Rigid >> Summicron exhaustively. In fact following the optical bench tests of the >> 35/2 Summicron 8-glass, the pre-ASPH 35/2 Summicron and the 35/2,8 >> Summaron >> that were the basis for my article in LHSA Viewfinder, I have had the same >> optical bench tests done by optical genius ? ;-) ?Roy Youman at Optikos >> Corporation on my 50/2 DR Summicron, the vaunted ALPA Kern 50/1,9 >> Macro-Switar and the hugely under-appreciated Leitz/Leica 60/2,8 >> Macro-Elmarit. For a forth-coming Viewfinder article. >> >> First some basics. The DR/Rigid Summicron does indeed induce some flare at >> f/2 and 2,8, created by the so-called "air-lenses" between the first two >> and >> second two lens pairs. That flare disappears somewhere between apertures >> f/2,8 and f/4. The 50 Summicron introduced in 1969, 11817, was >> specifically >> designed for best possible performance at the widest stops, ergo, to >> reduce >> flare and at those stops, in flare-inducing photographics situations, it >> is >> an improvement over the DR/Rigid. At f/4 and further stopped down, the >> DR/Rigid's contrast = suppression of flare, is as good or better than >> 11817 >> whose MTF charts are significantly worse than the DR/Rigid. The next - and >> current - 50 Summicron improved very significantly on 11817 in both >> contrast >> and resolution but the resolution of neither matches that of the DR/Rigid. >> Read carefully here, I do not mean to suggest that the DR/Rigid will never >> flare at the smaller stops, say f/8 and smaller. Only the later >> Leitz/Leica >> - and other - lenses, the Noctiluxes being phenomenal examples, have so >> remarkably suppressed flare and coma so that you can photograph bright >> light >> sources within the frame and reproduce only the light itself and no >> surrounding glow. All of the Summicrons - and the Planars - will produce >> flare with light sources in the frame and in contre jour, backlighted >> situations. >> >> Now, let's go back to Puts. As usual, Erwin mixes and matches to lead to >> an incorrect inference, thinking that it will not be noticed. He writes >> that >> the Planar "equals the Summicron-M and is even a trace better in field >> curvature". He is comparing the Planar to the current Summicron, NOT to >> the >> DR/Rigid. He could not possibly make that statement about the DR/Rigid >> because that lens has a remarkably flat field and absence of field >> curvature. Why? Because it was designed not only for general photography >> but >> for close-up work as well, where absence of field curvature is essential, >> ergo, the famous viewfinder "goggles" or "bug-eyes". To Erwin's credit, he >> acknowledges that "it is now possible to equal but not surpass the >> [current] >> Summicron design as long as you stay within the D-G limits". But he is not >> comparing it with the DR?Rigid. He nowhere in this report claims that his >> now-beloved Zeiss 50/2 Planar equals, let alone exceeds the DR/Rigid >> Summicron. You really have to read this guy carefully; he's been bobbing >> and >> weaving like this in his writing for years. >> >> But he then immediately seeks to confuse the issues again by writing: >> "This conclusion makes the claim of some Leica collectors, that the >> current >> Summicron is a lesser design than the all-curved predecessor (the >> DR/Rigid), >> somewhat hollow." This sentence IS A PERFECT NON-SEQUITUR. >> >> I have somewhere in my collection of Puts-isms a writing by him that the >> current 50 Summicron introduced 5 plane surfaces in order to reduce >> manufacturing costs (that would be both glass and assembly) and in a >> different writing that when this is done, image quality is not maintained. >> Understand, friends, that every lens, by any manufacturer, is a >> compromise. >> The current 50 Summicron has better overall optical performance than the >> DR/Rigid at the first two stops IN HIGH FLARE SITUATIONS. Otherwise the >> DR/Rigid ?still delivers the best overall optical perfomance available >> among >> these lenses. >> >> And of course even Erwin has often acknowledged that the build quality of >> all of the Leitz lenses from the 1950's, '60's and very early '70's has >> never since been equaled. >> >> At the same time, I have to say that the optical performance of the new >> 50/1,4 Summilux-ASPH is absolutely astonishing, straight across the board. >> The ONLY comments about it that I have heard or read that were not >> entirely >> complimentary related to a certain edginess or harshness that probably >> derives from its design purpose of maintaining extraordinary high contrast >> at all stops and acrossd the entire film/sensor plane. >> >> Now to Erwin's in installment 3: >> >> "Planar-T 2/50 ZM >> "Wide open the lens shows excellent neutrality of colours with amazingly >> good retention of fine colour hues. Very fine detail is recorded with good >> clarity, but with less crispness than the Leica counterpart. It shares >> with >> that lens the weak suppression of secondary reflections, due to the >> reflections at the edges of the rear mount. The background blur is on the >> harsh side. >> The transition from the sharpness plane to the unsharpness regions however >> is quite long, giving a fine impression of depth and extension. The lens >> is >> especially good at recording detail in extended shadow zones, when you >> take >> pictures at dusk or at night. >> The background blur shows the major outlines of the subject shapes, more >> sketching than drawing so to speak. Close up performance is excellent from >> centre to edge without any vignetting and distortion. >> The Planar wide open is a potent performer and at smaller apertures >> becomes a master at reproducing with a life-like three dimensionality, >> that >> was the hallmark of the G-version of the Planar too." >> >> So let's analyze: >> >> "Very fine detail is recorded with good clarity, but with less crispness >> than the Leica counterpart." >> >> In Erwin-speak, this means that the current Summicron-M has better edge >> contrast than the Planar. It will be clearly inferior to the DR/Rigid >> except >> in the photo situations noted above. >> >> "It shares with that lens the weak suppression of secondary reflections, >> due to the reflections at the edges of the rear mount. The background blur >> is on the harsh side." >> >> First sentence is a comparison with the current not the DR Summicron. The >> second sentence is an acknowledgement of bad bokeh. >> >> As a famous Irishman said in his allocution whilst standing upon an >> English gallows: ? ? I am done. >> >> Seth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >