Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with you Jayanand, in part. We generally are used to viewing "through" our own lenses - would it work if we didn't? Some see flaws in our output that we don't. The converse being true too. With very few exceptions, we all view photos everyday, taken with "better" equipment than ours (think 4/3, DX, FF, MF for instance) and it alters our initial vision and perception, which may make us, me at least, lust for other, even better suited gear. Different gear also modifies our technical options when shooting, both ways, up and down. As a result, the choice of film, body or lenses matters, whatever X, or Y, or worse EP, writes about them ;-) These reviews are only valuable to the extent that they may prevent an unfortunate purchase of a widely rejected bad lens ... I hardly ever read them, or too late, or choose to ignore them altogether, my problem I know ;-) About results : I no longer print, and view on screen exclusively - yet, and this is where I think we're at variance, the quality of lenses really matters to me - distortion, moustache, hair-cut, vignetting, sharpness, chromatic aberrations, etc. do. My screen is much larger than most of what I used to print anyway. I'm sure most Luggers find these issues too and even Nikonists, with other pasts and cultures, end up being concerned with these - remember I'm one of them again, nothing personal my friend. My take is also that when one only judges by the results, we're all able to make our own opinions. And the LUG is just great for viewing different results from different photogs using different gear, so long as they post their pictures large enough ... ;-) Now, that we should like the results or not, is more a question of personal taste, perception, and culture than anything else, not of a single reviewer's lens ratings. Your photos of Ireland DO fit my bill :-) Amiti?s Philippe Le 1 juil. 11 ? 04:48, Jayanand Govindaraj a ?crit : > > I have been listening to this debate with great interest. What > amazes me is > the feeling that something a technical reviewer (Erwin Putts) > touches on > seems to be more believable than seeing actual photographs (Sonny > Carter's). > I sort of come away with the feeling that we have lost our ability > to make > our own judgements. Blame it on the internet where unproven opinion > is so > easy to get! (-: > > My view on this subject is very simple - shoot with the lens you > have - in > normal viewing conditions, for 99.99% of photographers in the whole > wide > world, it does not matter whether the lens is stellar or it is a > dog. Camera > equipment should be purchased purely based on requirement - for > example, I > carry the fastest long lenses that I can find and bodies that are > exceptional performers in low light because the subjects I enjoy > photographing require it. I am far more casual about what I use at the > wide/normal end, it is just not that important. Equally, I do not > understand > why one would buy Leica M lenses instead of CV or Zeiss if one is > not going > to shoot wide open for the most part. But that is just me. > > Take both the London photographs I posted the other day - both are > taken > with what would pass as crappy amateur Nikon zooms in any technical > review - > 'Wild Dogs' was shot with (the horror!) a kit lens that came with > the D70 - > a slow 18-70mmDX. 'Reflections' was shot with an all-in-one 18-200DX > lens, > even worse. I like both these lenses, and have found them very good > for > casual travel in conjunction with a light, small body. Both these > shots were > submitted for Print Exchanges (Letter/A4 size) in the past with no > adverse > comment on the crappiness of the lens or print. At least I print - > the great > majority of users of photographic equipment nowadays just post > online - for > them the quality of lenses is irrelevant. As I have said many times > in the > past, you might see greater detail with great lenses, but not up to > 19'x13' > prints at normal viewing distances - this is my conclusion based on > careful > study of my collection of 1000+ prints emanating from Print > Exchanges, both > colour and B&W, as well as numerous prints that I continue to > purchase for > my collection. > > See my Travel Folder - all the photographs except 'Wild > Dogs' (D70+18-70mm > kit lens) and "Lakeside" (GF1+20mm) were taken with the Nikon D40x > and the > 18-200DX lens, a distinctively lowbrow combo!: > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/jayanand/ireland/ > > Cheers > Jayanand > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > >> According to Erwin's Book Leica Lens Compendium, 2001: >> >> " At full aperture the M-21 has a low to medium overall contrast, >> crisp >> rendition >> of fine detail on axis (image height 6mm), with a fairly rapid drop >> in the >> field. The lens is flare sensitive, has vignetting of 2.5 stops and >> visible >> distortion." >> You'd of course need to read the thing yourself to get the full >> context.* >> >> Stopped down a couple it improves. Read f 5.6 >> He says that at f 4.5 it matches the performance of the ASPH >> version wide >> open at 2.8! >> >> I have in my mind an image of a wide angle f 4.5 lens. >> Its tiny. A bit smaller than the super Angulon 3.4. >> About the size of the tip of my pinky or a thimble. >> No need for it to be collapsible. >> I think I've seen them in the Leica and Nikon catalogs and books. >> >> I've never before this review of the lens remembered the contrast or >> resolution of a Leicas lens described "medium" let along "low". >> I think in glass made in the 1930's the word "medium" was used now >> and >> then. >> Normally its an issue of: high, very high, and ridiculously high. >> But don't >> quote me. >> >> If were to use a lens on a rangefinder camera which really only >> performed >> well at f 4.5 I'd get an 4.5 lens Its not as if I'm looking >> THROUGH the >> darned thing. It does not need to snap on a bright groundglass. >> That's SLR >> thinking. >> >> Oh and by the way he writes that stopping down the ASPH two stops >> to f 5.6 >> removes all distortion and is in effect the optimum way of shooting >> the >> lens. >> >> I'm surprised no one could fish out his or her Erwin book or look >> up the >> PDF >> on his hard disk or on the internet. >> >> The pre apish 21 is a real embarrassment for Leica. >> One of the real very few. >> But made in 1980 its also a bit of forgettable history. >> To buy one now and think you're getting a deal becuae it says >> "Leica or >> Leitz" on it and you're getting it for a song to me is regrettable. >> There is a shoebox full of much worthier option's from a dozen >> companies. >> >> >> >> >> >> *This is on page 102 of the PDF or page 140 of the real book. >> >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> Photography >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >