Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. >