[Leica] All cats are grey at f8

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Frank writes:
> "If you are shooting at f5.6 Leica lenses are a bit of a waste of
> money. My Leica 50mm f1.4 is noticeable better that my Nikon 50mm f1.4
> -at- f1.4, but at f5.6 i see very little difference. The price
> differential is almost 10:1.
> That is my experience in general, sure all lenses get better stopped
> down, very particularly the cheap ones. What makes Leica worth the
> money (if you have it) is it loses so little quality as you open up,
> compared to others.
> IME."
> 
> 
> I echo Franks opinion. A number of years ago one of the big US photo
> magazines did a survey of all major manufacturer 50mm lenses on the
> market. I forgot whether it was Modern Photography or Popular
> Photography. The survey included resolution, flare, fall off,
> distortion and all the usual suspects. While there were distinct
> differences wide open, not always in Leica's favor, when closed down
> to f8, all lenses were virtually identical. This finding was more or
> less confirmed by Canon in their detailed lens guide of 1969. In fact
> Canon said that when it came to photographic quality, lenses designed
> for lesser maximum apertures were better at reduced lens stops than
> faster lenses. Generally a f3.5 lens stopped down to f8 would
> outperform a f2 lens stopped down to the same aperture. The slower
> lenses had fewer elements and were of simpler design. Given the
> technology of that period this implied lower flare and internal
> reflection. Erwin Puts concludes that the f3.5 50mm Elmar lasted so
> long in the quality lens arsenal because the design was so simple that
> technical improvements in lens construction, including coating and
> rare earth glasses, made little difference in actual performance. I
> don't know if advances in lens design have closed the gap but if you
> commonly shoot at apertures of f5.6 through f16, then $3000 objectives
> are overkill. Better to use the money on a two year supply of single
> malt scotch or a lifetime supply of Belgian ale (or 100 Tilly hats).
> Larry Z
> 


I love you guys' opinions. You should all agree with each other.
Any commercial photographer who shot 99 percent of their jobs they were
hired to do wide open would never collect and would be laughed out of town.
Wide open shooting with its super limited in focus depth of field look is a
rare look applicable for a small minority of the photographs people want to
be looking at or hire people to make for them.
Photography is not rhetorical philosophy. Its a craft and a job.
Does "Leica shooters always shoot wide open" sound good to you?
It sounds just a great to a working photographer as
'"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;"
Its not how things sound or read that counts. Its how they look in print.
More often than not the client wants to see not just the subject but also
the environment that subject is sitting in. not a mass of wonderful bokeh.



[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner