Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:39 PM 3/7/97 -0500, Ernie Nitka wrote: >For any of you who still get Pop. Photog. ( I get it as a freeby - >wouldn't actually pay $ for it willingly) there's an insipid letter from >a reader complaining that his 1947 Summitar doesn't stack up to a Konica >lens of recent vintage proving how much hype there is to the Leica Lens >Lore (LLL for short). To their credit the magazine responded fairly by >stating that the writer's comparison was hardly Apples to Apples. And THAT is the entire problem with photographic reportage in this modern age. The proper response SHOULD have been: what do you mean by 'stack up'? State your standards and give quantitative results. Or, conversely, stick to emotive responses and simply say, 'I don't find the Summitar produces results I like as much as those from my Konica', in which case the standard is purely subjective. The difficulty here is that these morons from Pop and its ilk (including the 'Bug) ENCOURAGE the logically insipid attitude that there is ONE proper test by which lenses can be judged. And, of course, there isn't any such thing: different lenses are designed to meet different criteria, and a Summitar was designed for ONE set of parameters and some Konica lens for another. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!