Re: [Leica] CDI tests

["Eno" <eno22@enter.net>]

You wrote:
<>snip<>
<<<And yes there have been improvements, asph.for example and it counts, but
I
would have switched to the asph knowing it was supposed to be better,
sharper etc. But I would have taken it out of the box, gone for broke
without wasting film to find out if it were. As it would've shown up in the
assignments I was shooting. And that's still the ultimate test.  End images.
<>snip<>

ted
>>>>

It's a tough one to argue that's for sure.  I've always been
snapshot-shoot/frame-look-find-take the picture oriented(TM)
The improvements are exactly the way you say.  I guess some would say one is
NOT 'really' noticing the lens imrovements without a bench and other stuff
that's hard to carry around.  But it's not a valid statement at all. Someone
tells me I can't tell the difference between 35 summ and 35 summ asph at
f/123456789 and it says nothing.  You gotta trust someone and when the new
50/2 is reported "superior" by the testers I want it.  Then I shoot (also no
money) and I see it.   If I don't it's me doing something not quite right or
the light or anything - except blaming the lens (unless it has a definite
and verified flaw).

So yes it will show up (unless you are really bad).  Or will it?  Yes but
you should first know what it is that you have in your hand!  A 24 asph!
Ahh the slides...where is that gem?  I can't find it... There it is!  That
one shot affirms the whole thing.  One could think about it more and more.
Or less.

And if there is a conflicting report?  Well it's not hard to find someone
who is convincing about Leica.  And honest too! The bottom line is if you
have a fine cigar or fine scotch or fine stuff...  of which the whole
purpose is beginning to end  satisfaction...   well, you should really know
beforehand! I doubt anyone in this case is being fooled. If so, the LUG is
messed up!!
...as if there were someone here who uses Leicas but didn't know until many
years after that they were pretty good.  Not lately.
esnot