Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have been listening to this debate with great interest. What amazes me is the feeling that something a technical reviewer (Erwin Putts) touches on seems to be more believable than seeing actual photographs (Sonny Carter's). I sort of come away with the feeling that we have lost our ability to make our own judgements. Blame it on the internet where unproven opinion is so easy to get! (-: My view on this subject is very simple - shoot with the lens you have - in normal viewing conditions, for 99.99% of photographers in the whole wide world, it does not matter whether the lens is stellar or it is a dog. Camera equipment should be purchased purely based on requirement - for example, I carry the fastest long lenses that I can find and bodies that are exceptional performers in low light because the subjects I enjoy photographing require it. I am far more casual about what I use at the wide/normal end, it is just not that important. Equally, I do not understand why one would buy Leica M lenses instead of CV or Zeiss if one is not going to shoot wide open for the most part. But that is just me. Take both the London photographs I posted the other day - both are taken with what would pass as crappy amateur Nikon zooms in any technical review - 'Wild Dogs' was shot with (the horror!) a kit lens that came with the D70 - a slow 18-70mmDX. 'Reflections' was shot with an all-in-one 18-200DX lens, even worse. I like both these lenses, and have found them very good for casual travel in conjunction with a light, small body. Both these shots were submitted for Print Exchanges (Letter/A4 size) in the past with no adverse comment on the crappiness of the lens or print. At least I print - the great majority of users of photographic equipment nowadays just post online - for them the quality of lenses is irrelevant. As I have said many times in the past, you might see greater detail with great lenses, but not up to 19'x13' prints at normal viewing distances - this is my conclusion based on careful study of my collection of 1000+ prints emanating from Print Exchanges, both colour and B&W, as well as numerous prints that I continue to purchase for my collection. See my Travel Folder - all the photographs except 'Wild Dogs' (D70+18-70mm kit lens) and "Lakeside" (GF1+20mm) were taken with the Nikon D40x and the 18-200DX lens, a distinctively lowbrow combo!: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/jayanand/ireland/ Cheers Jayanand On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > According to Erwin's Book Leica Lens Compendium, 2001: > > " At full aperture the M-21 has a low to medium overall contrast, crisp > rendition > of fine detail on axis (image height 6mm), with a fairly rapid drop in the > field. The lens is flare sensitive, has vignetting of 2.5 stops and visible > distortion." > You'd of course need to read the thing yourself to get the full context.* > > Stopped down a couple it improves. Read f 5.6 > He says that at f 4.5 it matches the performance of the ASPH version wide > open at 2.8! > > I have in my mind an image of a wide angle f 4.5 lens. > Its tiny. A bit smaller than the super Angulon 3.4. > About the size of the tip of my pinky or a thimble. > No need for it to be collapsible. > I think I've seen them in the Leica and Nikon catalogs and books. > > I've never before this review of the lens remembered the contrast or > resolution of a Leicas lens described "medium" let along "low". > I think in glass made in the 1930's the word "medium" was used now and > then. > Normally its an issue of: high, very high, and ridiculously high. But don't > quote me. > > If were to use a lens on a rangefinder camera which really only performed > well at f 4.5 I'd get an 4.5 lens Its not as if I'm looking THROUGH the > darned thing. It does not need to snap on a bright groundglass. That's SLR > thinking. > > Oh and by the way he writes that stopping down the ASPH two stops to f 5.6 > removes all distortion and is in effect the optimum way of shooting the > lens. > > I'm surprised no one could fish out his or her Erwin book or look up the > PDF > on his hard disk or on the internet. > > The pre apish 21 is a real embarrassment for Leica. > One of the real very few. > But made in 1980 its also a bit of forgettable history. > To buy one now and think you're getting a deal becuae it says "Leica or > Leitz" on it and you're getting it for a song to me is regrettable. > There is a shoebox full of much worthier option's from a dozen companies. > > > > > > *This is on page 102 of the PDF or page 140 of the real book. > > > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > > > > >