Re: Leica Desires

[Gary J Toop <gtoop@uoguelph.ca>]

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Eric Welch wrote:

> Pop Photo who tested the 35, 50 and 75 Summiluxes and said they were nothing
> speical. They're probably right about the 35 Summilux M, which is one of the
> oldest, if not the oldest design in the M Stable. But their tests of the
> other two lenses were way off according to people who own the lenses.

	If the 50 and 75 were better than the tests suggested at wide 
apertures, this criticism makes sense because, although PP's commentary 
didn't emphasize this as much as it might have, all three lenses were damn 
fine from f4 down.  

	If the lenses are better stopped down than PP claimed, they would 
have to be even more exceptional than the tests suggest:  I don't think 
that I have ever seen SQF (Subjective Quality Factor - the central part 
of PP's rating system) ratings for other lenses of comparable focal 
length that were as good from f4 down.  As I recall, the 50 was better 
from f4 down than either of the Contax Planars, which were, I believe, 
better than any of the Nikon or Canon offerings, and the 75 was better 
from f4 down and nearly as good at f2.8 as the new Zeiss 90/2.8 for the 
G-1, which PP said was the best 90 that they had tested.  The 35 was 
also extremely good from f4 down and had a very small amount of barrel 
distortion.  PP's criticism of the lenses was based on their performance 
wide-open and at f2 and, sometimes, f2.8, which they claimed to be poorer 
that that of their competitors.  Stopped down past that, there was 
nothing to find fault with and much to praise, although PP's praise 
seemed more restrained than it might have been.  

	I am quite prepared to believe that the Summiluxes are better 
wide-open and near wide-open that PP says, if that is where your friends 
think the tests were mistaken:  I assume that they are not saying that the 
results at smaller apertures were too poor!

Gary Toop