Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Voigtlander Ultron
From: Peter Metelerkamp <Peter.Metelerkamp@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:32:02 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)

As a longtime but always hurried lurker and first-time 
poster I hope you will all bear with a lengthy post. Please 
also forgive me if I do not enter into any ensuing 
discussion - I offer this for what it is worth, penned 
during a brief moment. 

I took advantage of the indulgence of the fellows in the 
local branch of London Camera Exchange last week to do a 
"real world" test on the Cosina 35mm F1.7 lens against the 
Leica 35mm F2 Asph. Using the film that happened to be in my 
camera at the time - dead ordinary HP5 - I shot a quick 
snap of John the salesman - interior, grunge fluorescent 
lighting at between F2.8 and F4 @1/125. Then two exteriors  
- - a "busy and messy" shot of people, traffic lights, etc., 
and a "resolution" shot of a building across the road with 
a pronounced stonework pattern, etched windows, carved 
lintels, decorative carving etc. (Victorian). Both of the 
above were grabbed at 1/500 at apertures of F8. I processed 
the film as usual in Xtol 1:1 and printed at 16X12 on Agfa 
multicontrast premium - glass carrier, Nikkor 2.8 enlarger 
lens, "grade 2" (we know that is a merely notional point in 
dichroic and other systems). So, allowing for camera shake, 
possible fractional enlarger misalignment invisible 
through my Peak finder(?), the fact that the Nikkor lens 
intervenes in the chain, etc. etc. (very much a "real 
world" test, as I say) what could one see? The first 
interesting point is that all the Ultron shots seemed to 
print about 1/8 of a stop "lighter" than the Summicron 
(despite the fact that the arrows in the M6 indicated the 
same exposure). This might suggest a less 
"massive" or "contrasty" look on the part of the Cosina 
(consistent with Leica's reputation). When adjusted down 
minutely so the overall tones looked similar, it was VERY 
difficult to tell the shots apart - when I took the prints 
back to the shop, both John and the manager Jason on snap 
viewings correctly identified the Leica unerringly on the 
interior and the "messy" exterior. In the former the "3d" 
effect of the modeling of the bone-structure of John's 
forehead was clearly visible, as was the clean line of his 
shoulder separated from a smoothly blurred background. On 
the messy exterior, too, the smoothness, 3-dimensionality 
and "weight" of the Leica image were evident - the fine 
serrated edge of a tiled roof at around 500 metres also 
showing up where the Cosina rendered a grainy sky and 
"smoothed off" tiles. Both John and Jason were unable to 
guess on the "resolution" test. However on closer 
examination the differences are clearly there, too - for 
example the faint texture of a frosted window, shown "3d" 
by the Leica and as sludge by the Cosina... But you really 
have to look and know what you are looking for! 

This is a very rough test with fast film, home processing, 
etc. etc. And (because of Leica's reputation and 
"character") we knew what we were looking for. So I make no 
claims for scientific value! At F1.7 there would be no 
contest, of course, so perhaps a fairer test should have 
been Cosina vs. Summilux (but this was after all a "real 
world" test by a relatively impecunious would-be 
purchaser).

Finally, a very good rangefinder with lovely ergonomics 
would have blown any or all of these images to smithereens 
(I refer of course to the Mamiya 7). Which makes the game 
of obsessing about minutiae in what was and remains a 
"miniature" format a little silly. 

And yet..... what is "rightness" in 35mm? A huge and 
complex question (Why do I like Tri-x? Why do I take better 
pictures with the ergonomically challenged M6 than with the 
boy-racer F5? Why do I prefer Shwarzkopf to Te Kanawa...?)

As for this little test, my own feeling is simple - I am 
going the financial distance and buying the Leica lens. Not 
only because is does not require a screw-to-bayonet adapter 
and has that nice focusing tab and a better hood and is just
a little bit more solidly made....

As our transatlantic brethren say - "go figure...."

- ----------------------
Peter Metelerkamp
Programme Director
MA in Film and Television Production
University of Bristol 
peter.metelerkamp@bris.ac.uk