Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?

["Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>]

Paul Chefurka wrote:
>>As a result, I am now planning to utterly disregard all "lens tests",
whether published by persons unknown on the internet, or in Pop Photo, or in
books by camera system gurus.<<

>>I understand full well the masculine lust to know whose is sharpest
(longest?), but in the final analysis it's all crap.  Stick the lens on the
camera, shoot for 6 months, and if you don't like what you're getting try a
different one.>>>

Now now Paul
You might hurt some feelings talking like that about lens testing. ;-) After
all many of the people doing all this lens testing stuff feel that it's
important to the well being of their photographs instead of just going out
and getting on with picture taking. ;-)

Your bottom line of :
>>Stick the lens on the camera, shoot for 6 months, and if you don't like
what you're getting try a different one<<<

Is the simplest and perfect answer, sure saves throwing away a bunch of film
and time that could be better spent taking keeper pictures.

The only guy worth looking at his results of testing are those of Erwin Puts
and saves an awful lot of film and time by quickly cutting to the magical
results as Erwin's done it all.

I know there will be come backs of tales how they test lenses and do
elaborate checking etc. Bottom line, just put the damn lens on the camera go
shoot... "some real pictures"  not newspapers tacked to a wall and the
various other Mickey mouse methods.......  and if you like what you see from
the real stuff  ............ Cool, keep the lens! Dang that's so easy! KISS
it baby!

My test for all the years of camera use has been put the lens on, get out
there shoot ....... you know that available light stuff that Leica glass
does so well. And if it looked cool, it always did,  I started using it on
assignments immediately.  In many cases there wasn't time for "testing" it
was on the camera and on the job as fast you could get it out of the box.

Like you, I haven't got time to waste doing this kind of play stuff when you
can get the best information from Erwin or from his book, why try to
re-invent the wheels of lens testing when it's a heck of a lot more fun
taking pictures. :-)
ted




Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "" <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is
the R4?


> The one and only thing my recent foray into "lens testing" taught me is
that it's extremely hard (verging on the impossible) to get valid,
objective, defensible comparative results with the usual method of taking a
few pictures and examining them.  >
> The one and only thing that matters is whether a lens gives you results
you like.  > And that result for the 90AA is a big fat clue that this test
is as untrustworthy as mine was.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal [mailto:cyberdog@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 4:21 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible
> is the R4?
>
>
> Henning,
>
> does the "90 A-A" refer to what I think it refers to (APO Summicron-M
ASPH)
> ?
>
> How is that possible ?
>
> Pascal
> NO ARCHIVE
>
> -----------
> See my Leica pages at http://www.leicapages.com
> ----------
> <<< PGP public key available on request >>>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Henning
> > Wulff
> >
> > 1. The Micro Nikkor 55mm/2.8 AIS scores significantly higher than the
> > 90 A-A. This is a huge surprise to me, and I'm sure to most others
> > that have used these two lenses.
> >
> > 2. The Minolta MC 58/1.2 Rokkor scores about the same as the 90 A-A.
> > Again; far from my experience.
> >
> > 3. The 28-85 3.5-4.5 Nikkor at 85mm is essentially the same quality
> > as the 90 A-A! Hah!
>