[Leica] Whoops, rant mode again

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>Do you have any information that says the first versions are any
better?  I take it you don't believe Erwin is correct in his assessment
that the 2nd version is optically better because of only one aspherical
surface?<<<


I basically object to simple characterization of lenses, and to
extraordinarily fine distinctions of performance as relating at all to
"better" and "best." It's a technical matter for lens designers and not
something that relates to practical photography or to photographic
accomplishment. The first version Aspherical is an extraordinary lens
that yields incredible results. I have heard nothing at all bad about
the second (current) ASPH version, which also gets glowing reviews from
users.

Making quality distinctions between them is like awarding two students a
97 and a 98 score on an essay. It's a judgement call, and both are very
good. The "grades" are arbitrary.

People should really get over the idea that a lens that is very slightly
"better" by some arcane measure will somehow improve their pictures. The
idea is simply mistaken. You learn the characteristics of your lens, and
you apply those characteristics in ways that please you aesthetically.
John Brownlow, for instance, has demonstrated that, with his ancient
35mm Summilux that is "much worse" than the current lens, he can shoot
rings around many people who own the current lens. In fact, in some
cases, his pictures might be "worse" if he had the "better" lens.

In the words of the old song by Southside Johnny and the Ashbery Jukes,
it ain't the meat, it's the motion. Every now and then at the magazine I
receive a packet of dreadful snapshots or awful prints by some rank
beginning photographer who wants my advice as to why his pictures suck
despite the fact that he has researched the matter carefully and bought
the very best equipment and identified the very best materials. It's
because THAT AIN'T IT. That isn't the problem. What matters is
technique, skill, visual aptitude, experience, spatial visualization
(what Cartier-Bresson refers to as "geometry"), artistic judgement, and
understanding of, and passion for, the subject matter. Yes, I've gotten
pictures shot with the ASPH Summilux on Ektar 25; also pictures shot on
Tech Pan, with 8x10, prints developed in Amidol, film developed in
whatever, this lens, that lens, this camera, that camera. They're always
curious as to why it doesn't solve the central problem. "Why, if Amidol
is supposed to be the best print developer and give the richest blacks,
do my prints still look muddy?" Because you suck as a printer?

Guess what? It's possible to make technically perfect pictures that are
absolutely worthless; and it's possible to use the absolute "best"
equipment and materials and still take pictures that suck. You can buy
the best target-shooter's bow and still miss the target; you can buy the
best car and still not be a very good driver; you can buy the very best
golf clubs and still stink up the golf course.

Yes, equipment matters. But increasingly fine distinctions between very
good types of equipment is not going to make any difference to anyone.
Anybody who owns either aspherical-element 35mm Summilux owns one hell
of a lens. NO ONE who owns either aspherical-element 35mm Summilux gets
brownie points over and above anybody else who happens to own the other
one. That's not what it's all about. Next question?

- --Mike