Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All, The recent 75 1.4 Summilux M thread got me to thinking, "Just how good might that lens be?" Erwin certainly thinks its the bee's knees. But pawing down through the lens test archive, I came across the Popular Photography August 94 review of the summilux (the only other one available, BTW), as well as another review of a lens I already have, the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 zoom. Here's the rub. The performance of both lenses at 2.8 is the same, with the zoom tested at 80mm (both got a "C+"). How can this be? How can a single focal length Leica lens, two stops down from max (presumably improving performance significantly), equal the performance of a big zoom lens wide open? Shouldn't the Leica blow away the zoom? How can this be? Some ideas... 1) Pop Photo's lens testing procedures are out-of-whack 2) They tested the worst sample available of the 75 and the best sample available of the zoom 3) The challenge of making a 75 1.4 at all necessarily includes optical compromises, degrading potential performance at 2.8 in a lens of that speed Realizing that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison in an infinite sense, but concerned that two pictures taken by both lenses at 2.8 under the same conditions would be indistinguishable, I'm longing for someone to tell me I'm dead wrong. So, tell me. To quoth Roger, "Shields up!" David W. Almy Annapolis, Maryland