[Leica] Whoops, rant mode again

[Rob Schneider-Laura Tully <robslaurat@earthlink.net>]

Mike Johnston wrote:


> >>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.
>
<edit>

> 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
>
Right, right, right and right.  (Well, "It Ain't the Meat . . ." is way
older than Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, but that's a solid
rendition, so, fine.)

BUT, as I read this thread, Austin took a swipe at Ting Lee for trying to
sell an $1800 (used) lens for $3300, not understanding that the "Aspherical"
wasn't the "ASPH."  When this was explained, he went slightly batshit over
the notion that anyone would pay so much for so little (relatively
speaking).   This, of course, is the age old misunderstanding of the
collector's milieu -- that hermetic demimonde where things unused,
untouched, produced in miniscule numbers have a cache, a "worth," far
exceeding their intrinsic value.  Then folks who own both lenses weighed in
to justify and rationalize their various expenditures.

No, no one can demonstrate the quality differences between the two lenses.
And if they could, the differences would be nullified in real world
photographic situations, barring the completion of someone's omnibus
exhibition of lens chart photos through the ages.  The side gallery will
contain a related exhibit called something like "Newspaper Classifieds, Edge
to Edge.  Twenty Years of Comprehensive Evaluation."  I can't wait.

As far as earning brownie points, I'm not so sure.  Of course,
photographically there are no points to be earned.  You're right there.  But
it is clear from long-running discussions that the "Get Off My Cloud" notion
of, "He can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me"
prevails in the minds of many on this list.

LUG Zeitgeist:

The old non-ASPH 35mm Summilux sucks.  It is worthless optically.  Anyone
who uses one is a loser, a schmuck.

No more than two years ago the 35 Summicron-M was world class.  Now, with
the Summicron ASPH on the market, the previous lens is a waste of time, a
non-performer, an antique, and basically garbage compared to the ASPH.
Anyone who uses one is a loser, a schmuck.

90 Summicron-M vs. 90 Summicron APO-ASPH, ditto.  Anyone who continues to
use the older lens is a loser, etc.

This could go on forever.  Those of us who use our Leicas and lenses to make
photographs use what we have, use what works for us.  For those who sit in
the basement, alone, and fondle their photo gear or use cameras as neck
jewelry or penile extensions, these minute distinctions are tremendously
important.

Do people have these same tedious discussions/arguments on the Canon and
Nikon lists?  Or is this "rationalization" peculiar to Leica?

Rob Schneider