Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 3/5/00 11:40:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, michaeljohnston@ameritech.net writes: << Since I made those same comments on the LUG, I thought I'd post Gary's results FWIW. The two grades are evaluations of center and corner performance, respectively. For a further explanation of his methodology, see his site. At f/2: Zuiko B- B- / Summicron B- B+ At f/2.8: Zuiko B- B / Summicron B A- At f/4: Zuiko A- A- / Summicron B+ A- At f/5.6: Zuiko A- A / Summicron A A+ At f/8: Zuiko A+ A+ / Summicron A- A- At f/11: Zuiko A A- / Summicron B+ B+ At f/16: Zuiko A- B+ / Summicron B+ B+ >> These "subjective" quality ratings really do not tell me too much except that the reviewer's impressions led to him conclude that the two lenses perform very similarly. When I tested Olympus and Leica lenses, the major observation of particular significance to me was the color cast in shadow areas - much more blue and blank with the Olympus lens. The Leica lenses had a richer, more differentiated color rendition in the difficult darker areas of the slide (Kodachrome 25). Further, sharpness is really a non-issue for almost any modern lens - I have tested dozens of them using a line-pairs test target. Many times Leica lenses do not resolve as many line pairs as the Japanese versions (excluding the new ASPH designs). That realization used to bother me when I was younger and each lens represented a month's pay after taxes, however when I look at the slides I took over the years, it is clear that Leica lenses of the 70's and 80's produced substantially more pleasing images when compared to my other camera systems. Bob Figlio