Re: [Leica] Critical test reports by CDI

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Pascal wrote:
> In the midst of the Photokina fever, I would like to come in with the
> conclusions of a couple of tests done by the French magazine Chasseur
> d'Images (although their latest reports have been mentioned before on
> this list). The results are quite critical...
> Do you notice a pattern? Althought they admit that the optical and
> mechanical quality of these three lenses is excellent, their prices at
> outrageous compared to the competition that can offer lenses as good as
> these Leica's for much less with the added bonus of autofocus.

Pascal,

I find the CdI tests very coherent, even if the conclusions evolve
through the years, and rightly so. The influence of these tests is
greater than the readership of the magazine itself. I have based many a
buying decision on their columns and when I did not, experience proved
that I should have. The CdI editors are no more failure proof than you
and I of course, but I believe in the honesty of their work and in their
dedication in providing high quality benchmarking. I do not have the
same reaction towards other titles in the specialised press. 

Furthermore I have NEVER seen a press release anywhere reacting to a CdI
test or putting their integrity in doubt. The editors also guarantee
repeating the test, on another specimen of the lens, if a maker should
require so in order to double check the results. Following them, there
has never been any contradiction brought forward by the suppliers and
none of the counter-tests have delivered significantly different results
to the first ones. 

The conclusions they come to regarding a large part of the Leica offer
seem plausible to me. They do make a difference between the best of
breed at Leica and the not best of breed at Leica: it is not only a case
of "prices too high". And they are doing their job when they question
either the non-excellence of some lenses (24mm f2.8 R, 100mm f4 macro R,
28-70 zooms, etc) or the ageing of designs that were best-of-breed in
their time (180mm f3.4 R, 60mm f2.8 R, etc). And at equal performance,
they find no reason to favour a solution that costs 3 or 4 times
(sometimes even more) the price of the competition, with less
functionality. They are right and no black magic voodoo incantation can
change that.

I find it healthy to take those tests into account when buying lenses or
discussing performance, even if those results should not be the only
factor taken into account. Otherwise any of us is at risk of becoming a
blind puppet dancing at the hands of a few marketeers or a preacher
eternally repeating the same gospel.

Thanks for the (accurate) info anyway.

Alan.