Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Not shure if you're right. I'm not really interested in lenstests, but what I can see is that those jpgs of the comparison charts shot with the more renowned asph summicrons (right samples) have obviously been unsharp masked (resharpened), while the summarit pictures (left samples) have obviously not been. I opened both in PS and zoomed into - the summicron shots have the typical microcontrast effect which is dued to UM, not sharper glass. So let me interpret Puts: Rule 1: Leica is always better. Rule 2: The more expensive Leica lenses are always better than the less expensive Leica lenses. Rule 3: If rule 1 or 2 can not be applied, use Photoshop. :-) Didier >> http://www.imx.nl/photo/lenstest/summarit_lenses_part_two_ja.html > >Looking at the line pairs he is showing us the APO 75 and APO Asph 90 are >totally sharp looking and the Summitars look thrown way out of focus. The >difference is dramatic. Yet this is not what Erwin writes and we don't >visibly see the flair tests but these line pairs makes me wish Leica had >instead come out with conservative slower designs which would be much >easier to design tack sharp results from. While keeping the price point >closer to what is being aimed at I'm sure. Much lower. > >This looks like pudding. >Looking at this Leica seems to have taken a full step down. But again when >you read it that's not what he says in the text. Why I don't know I'm not >there. I just know what I think I see on my monitor. >The difference between black & white. > >To get full effect of this post try looking at it with Garamond premier pro >18 point. The "&"s really stand out nicely. > >Mark William Rabiner