Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Warning! Incoming!
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:36:28 -0500

Mike,

I fundamentally agree with what you are saying. On the other hand, the fact
that otherwise respectable optics outfits offer 'soft-focus' lenses
mystifies me! Adobe Photoshop has a perfectly good blur filter. One
criterion I look for in a lens is the best performance wide open i.e
flare,sharpness etc. The problem, and the reason I suspect that tests are
soooo popular, is that subjective lens assessments are soooo subjective. It
is widely assumed that the popular photography press is driven by ad $$$ and
hence subjective assessments are questionable. I'd bet that in an advertless
pub not at all associated with manufactorer's $$$, a subjective assessment
would go far, but even on this list it is acknowledged that people have
biases.

As I've said before I just can't tell the difference between my Canon
100/2.8 macro lens and my Leica 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit handheld using
Kodachrome 25, but I *did* buy the Canon based in large part on published
MTF data (it is by far the best lens in the $500 range). I've just got back
my first run of fall new england shots using both my m6 and eos using Fuji
Provia F RDP III. At least under an 8x loupe, there isn't an overwhelming
difference. The Provia F is very smooth, with a touch less edge sharpness
than Kodachrome, and somewhat more saturated colors. The Kodachromes do have
a 'punchier' look to them.

I think I'd reliably be able to tell the difference between Kodachrome and
Provia F but between the 90/2.8 and 100/2.8 no way!

Bottom line: the film is at least as important as the lens!

Jonathan Borden

Mike Johnston wrote:
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 6:09 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] Warning! Incoming!
>
>
> This started life as a "P.S." to another message, but it's just a rant.
> It would be unfair to direct it at any one individual. If you dislike
> rants, please skip.
>
>
> >   >   >
> For the record, camera lenses are for taking pictures. The whole notion
> of scientific performance evaluation of lenses is more than faintly
> fatuous. It's _photography_. In photography, to paraphrase Ctein, if you
> can't see the difference, it doesn't count. The way to evaluate
> performance is on performance...literally, how the lens performs for you
> when you use it.
>     People need to look at more historical pictures, is all I can say.
> Some of the most optically beautiful photographs I've ever seen were
> taken decades ago, some many decades, and some more than a century.
> Conversely, I'm not aware of any audience that knows, cares, or can
> recognize when you use a lens that gives you the same performance at
> f/2.8 that other lenses only match at f/4, or that resolves slightly
> better in the corners, or that can resolve 7 more lp/mm under controlled
> conditions with Tech Pan, or that flares less. It has _nothing_to_do_
> with creative photography. Creative people adapt to their tools and
> adapt their vision to the properties of the tools they're using. Sally
> Mann is exploring the aesthetic effects of halation right now; William
> Eggleston used old, uncoated fast lenses because he could use their
> flarey properties to good aesthetic effect. Bottom line: YOU DO NOT GET
> BROWNIE POINTS FOR USING A MORE EXPENSIVE LENS. And you do not get
> brownie points for using a lens that is only theoretically better.
> Sorry!  People will not look at your pictures and go, "well, his
> pictures suck, but he DOES use the lens that all other lenses were
> compared to in 1984."
>     Now then. One of my best friends uses the 50mm Summicron-M. It's a
> nice lens. Plenty good enough to make great pictures with; and fully
> capable of taking perfectly sharp and totally crappy pictures, too. If
> anyone likes it, use it.
>
> <   <   <
>
> Jeez, take a deep breath, Mike.
>
> Okay, rant mode off <s>. Sorry. Back to your regular programming.
>