Re: [Leica] Leica lens still superior???

[Dominique PELLISSIER <pelliss@droit-eco.u-nancy.fr>]

>Date: 3 Mar 98 10:22:08 -0600
>Subject: Re: Leica lens still superior???
>From: "Jim Williams" <jlw@NOSPAMnovia.net>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
>
>>I know that Leica lenses are very well made and optically superior.
>
You're already off on the wrong foot. Leica lenses ARE very well made, and
they tend to be of consistent high quality -- partly because at their
prices, they don't have to engineer any "economy" lenses into their lineup.
But as to a blanket statement that they're "optically superior" --
well,they aren't, and never were.The best lenses of other makers have
always been able to match or exceed the performance of Leica lenses. In
fact, from the '30s through '50s, the camera preferred by optical
cognosceti was the Zeiss-Ikon Contax. The Leica was smaller, more
comfortable, more dependable, and more convenient to operate -- but even
Leica buffs recognized that overall, its lenses were more "good enough"
than "stellar." There were only a few Leica lenses recognized as equal to
their Carl Zeiss counterparts -- the original 50mm f/3.5 Elmar and the
105/6.3 "Alpine" Elmar, to name two.
In the late '40s and early '50s, photographers traveling through Asia
discovered that the re-emergent Japanese optical industry was beginning to
turn out lenses superior to Leica's -- the 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5
Nikkors and the 85mm f/1.9 Canon Serenar were among the star performers
that helped build the Japanese industry's reputation. Since many of these
lenses were available in Leica screw thread mounts, significant numbers of
noted photojournalists dumped their Leitz optics and re-equipped with a mix
of Nikon and Canon glass.
It was only in the mid-'50s, when Leitz introduced its computer-designed
Summicron lens series to go with the then-new M3 camera, that Leica lenses
began to be regarded as at the forefront of optical performance. Even then,
though, they were simply recognized as being as good as the best -- never
"FAR MORE superior optically" to top-grade competitors.
When the Zeiss-Ikon Contax went out of production in 1961 -- taking its
superb lens line with it -- Leica was left with a clearer field for its
reputational myth-making. Meanwhile, as the spread between Leica prices and
the prices of "ordinary" cameras grew larger and larger, the proportion of
the population that had actually used a Leica or its lenses became smaller
and smaller -- further contributing to its cult status. In the '40s and
'50s, when many photographers were familiar with it, the Leica had been
regarded simply as one of the best 35mm cameras; as it grew more and more
out of reach, it became a less a working tool and more a cult object.
Photographers yearning for certainty in an uncertain art form felt more
comfortable believing that there was one "best" camera and one "best" line
of lenses, and that Leica was it. Since few of them had ever had the chance
to bang around with a Leica, or compare pictures taken with its lenses to
those taken with other brands, there was nothing to give them a "reality
check" on their beliefs. And photographers who DID use Leicas -- at least
some of whom bought in for status reasons, or because of their own fixed
beliefs in Leica superiority -- certainly weren't about to disabuse the
masses of their illusions.
And that's about where it stands today. When you pay those big bucks for a
Leica lens, you can be pretty sure you're getting something that's
mechanically very well-made, durable, and that performs consistently and
well. And, as someone else noted, many photographers prefer some of the
intangible characteristics of Leica lenses, such as their color rendition
and appearance of out-of-focus areas. But as to their being "far superior"
optically to the best lenses from Nikon or Canon... or, for that matter,
from Carl Zeiss or Pentax or Minolta... it just ain't so, and never was.

>
Reply : when I see the shower of 4- and 5-stars that present Leica lenses
received after MTF tests made by the french review Chasseur d'images (CI),
I must admit even if I'm not a Leica fanatic that there is an optical
superiority of most Leica lenses.BTW you mention the Nikkor 2.5/105 as
"superior to Leica". The MTF test made by CI shows it is a pure myth.So there!
In the past, MTF tests did not exist. So the rating of a lens was entirely
subjective and the consumer had to believe the manufacturer or the rumor.If
one day a great photographer, a big gun of the Leica, was  under the
weather and said that "a serenar is superior to an elmar", the whole gang
of yes-men followed.Today hot air does work neither for Leica nor for the
others.
As a conclusion, let me tell you a story. A few months ago, the french
photographer Guy Le Querrec had all his Leica gear stolen.He advertised in
CI writing he wanted a summicron 35, 2nd type with 6 elements.A rumor was
launched : the 2nd type is better than the 3rd type (last type before the
asph). CI published a text saying that Guy Le Querrec "didn't give a flying
fuck about the optical quality" (sic)but "was only accustomed to the
focusing lever of the summicron".That's all folks.

Dominique Pellissier