[Leica] lens quality and beauty

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Walt keeps stating (often in capitals) that there is no visible difference
between old and new Leica lenses and if so then only a few percentage
points of difference. For me it is quite remarkable that he can quantify
hardly perceptible differences with such accuracy. As I said some lenses do
show vast improvements, visible to anyone in all kinds of day to day
shooting. The old 1,4/35 versus the asph version is a case. Sometimes the
differences are smaller (I referred to the second generation Summicron 50
and the current one). But any categorical statement,  not substantiated by
some objective proof (or measurement) is a  myth IMHO.
The 2/ 35 asph improves visibly on its predecessor, the 2.8/24 is simply
stunning in all kinds of hand held shooting, the 2/50 Summicron and the
2,8/50 are of sparkling clarity, the 2,8/90 is bringing almost any film
over the edge, the new APO 90 is of superb quality as is the 3,4/135. Every
transparancy shot with any of these lenses stands out of the crowd head and
shoulders. If Walt does not see it, he simply does not want to see it.
It is true that the utmost of textural details will be seen only when a few
films of high capability are used. The improved contrast, the much greater
clarity and flare suppression, the fine shades of light in specular
highlights, the flatness of field etc can be clearly observed when using
any 100ISo transparancy film or 100 or 400 B&W.  These current lenses are
not only theoretical (or a few percentage points) improved, they are on a
different level.

Would pictures by HCB be better if made with modern lenses? That is not a
relevant question. Would Matisse have painted better pictues if he used
different quality  paints or a different quality canvas?  Artistic or
aesthetic aspects are not at stake here. Why not ask if Salgado's pictures
would be worse when made with older equipment?
The questions have been asked whether a modern Leica lens is more capable
of rendering beauty than an older one? Or, is a modern Leica lens capable
of rendering more beauty than an older one?
That is difficult but interesting to answer. Beauty is part emotion, part
impression, but always it is primarily a feeling. Some socio-biologists
will claim that the appreciation of beauty (of women) is universally
imprinted in our DNA. But even accepting this fact, it will hardly
correlate with optical quality. Beauty can be captured and represented with
every possible artistical means and instruments (poems, paintings, movies
etc). And so also with Leica lenses. The goal of optical designers is to
produce optical systems with a very small amount of residual aberrations in
order to be able to represent reality as faithfully as possible. Leica
lenses add their special flavor as these guys and girls really know what
aberrations are important for photographic purposes. So if and when beauty
can be  objectively captured in reality modern Leica lenses will do this
job more truthfully than older lenses. As long as beauty is ephemeral, any
lens will do. Remember David Hamilton? Lartigue? Atget?

Older lenses have their peculiar fingerprints and some people love these
characteristics. An old Harley mortorcycle also evokes sympathy and
admiration. Here one should walk softly. I myself have never seen in an
older lens characteristics that have not been improved in newer versions.
Even that most elusive aspect of three dimensionality is better represented
in modern lenses. Bokeh might be different between old and current, but
that is another story.
Again, older lenses can and should be admired (at least some of them) but I
would like to ask the persons who favor the qualities of the older lenses
to take comparative pictures of their favorite scene which really evokes
the qualities of older lenses not present in the current ones with the
older and a newer lens and then point out the differences if any.
I have made these comparative shots again and again and never saw something
in the representation of the older lenses that has not been improved in the
newer versions. The unsharpness area included. But I admit that the
rendition of shapes and outlines in the unsharpness area is a matter of
taste.

Erwin