BRJR Posted February 2, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) And, KR has now taken the time to check it out for himself; here's the link to more, for those of you that could be interested (it's about the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 M-mount lens): Voigtl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Hi BRJR, Take a look here It's Not A Leica-M Lens, But Some Leica-M Folks Have It.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rusted Chrome Posted February 2, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 2, 2011 Either he got a bad copy or he's just a bad photographer. Looking at what others can do with this lens, I suspect the latter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted February 2, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 2, 2011 Either he got a bad copy or he's just a bad photographer. Looking at what others can do with this lens, I suspect the latter. Probably both, from browsing around his website. He also trashes the Summarits, which in other hands seem to be very fine performers. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted February 3, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 3, 2011 Most people with common sense do not take Ken Rockwell seriously anyway...... Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 3, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 3, 2011 Particularly regarding sharpness he seems to have contrary views to just about every other review, and many user experiences (my own included). It is noteworthy that he described the Noctilux as being for 'speed not sharpness', yet the Nokton he pans for being soft wide open. The vignetting of the Noctilux he describes as 'shining the light of god' onto the central object, yet with the Nokton its just 'falloff', demonstrated with examples that to further complete the hatchet job don't use a lens profile. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 3, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 3, 2011 The person who deserves a medal is the poor woman who has to live with him... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted February 3, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The person who deserves a medal is the poor woman who has to live with him... Perhaps she's not particularly sharp either. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 3, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 3, 2011 Ah-but you have to pay him 5 $ if you prefer to read frompaper instead of LCD.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 3, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 3, 2011 He also trashes the Summarits, which in other hands seem to be very fine performers. Your comment surprised me so I checked his site. In fact, he say the Summarit optics are "superb." But, he doesn't like the mechanical quality, nor the price, compared to used Summicrons. I would have been astounded if he "trashed" the optical performance; not even he could be that blind. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 3, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 3, 2011 Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted February 3, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 3, 2011 Your comment surprised me so I checked his site. In fact, he say the Summarit optics are "superb." But, he doesn't like the mechanical quality, nor the price, compared to used Summicrons. I would have been astounded if he "trashed" the optical performance; not even he could be that blind. Jeff It's the "subpar mechanical quality" bit that I take issue with; my 4 Summarits all have excellent mechanical quality. He also says that he has only tested one (the 90/2.5, I believe) so maybe he got a bad copy. From what I have read here, this is not unknown with other of the recent Leica lenses... While the Summarits are not cheap if bought new, used copies are available at reasonable prices compared to older Leica lenses, and the newer optical designs/modern coatings offer better IQ. They also have 6-bit coding, which we M8 owners must add to most older used WA lenses. Of course, if one must have f2 or f1.4, then the Summarits won't do. I just don't agree with his overall assessment of the value of the Summarit-M lenses. To dismiss them as a class after having tested only one is poor journalism. It seems to me that Ken often ventures beyond his data in making his pronouncements, which makes it hard to take anything he says seriously. Too bad, there is some wheat in there with the chaff... Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 4, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 4, 2011 Jim, I'm a Summarit fan (even though I don't currently own one), and have previously provided this link, for instance, regarding Puts' finding that the 35 Summarit is superior to the Summicron...Summarit range I don't follow Rockwell, but understand that he is prone to wild and inappropriate statements at times. My comment only related to your statement that Rockwell "trashed" the Summarits. In reality, he certainly overgeneralized on mechanical quality, but found optics superb. I wouldn't draw the sweeping generalization that he therefore "trashed" them, which sounds like a total dismissal. Just as you wouldn't want Rockwell to similarly make such a sweeping statement. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted February 5, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 5, 2011 Jim, I'm a Summarit fan (even though I don't currently own one), and have previously provided this link, for instance, regarding Puts' finding that the 35 Summarit is superior to the Summicron...Summarit range I don't follow Rockwell, but understand that he is prone to wild and inappropriate statements at times. My comment only related to your statement that Rockwell "trashed" the Summarits. In reality, he certainly overgeneralized on mechanical quality, but found optics superb. I wouldn't draw the sweeping generalization that he therefore "trashed" them, which sounds like a total dismissal. Just as you wouldn't want Rockwell to similarly make such a sweeping statement. Jeff Point taken Jeff. I may have let my distaste for Ken's remarks carry me away. Perhaps I should have said that he "dissed" the Summarits... Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 5, 2011 Share #14 Posted February 5, 2011 Point missed, I think. The word isn't the issue; the broadness of your conclusion is. He trashed or dissed (take your pick) the mechanical quality of the Summarits. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted February 5, 2011 Share #15 Posted February 5, 2011 Point missed, I think. The word isn't the issue; the broadness of your conclusion is. He trashed or dissed (take your pick) the mechanical quality of the Summarits. Jeff Yeah, whatever... I don't think I want to get into a wordsmithing contest here; I know what I meant to say. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 6, 2011 Share #16 Posted February 6, 2011 Ken probably says the same. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted February 6, 2011 Share #17 Posted February 6, 2011 I didn't get that he was that negative about the Summarit when I read it. I just went back and read that he said "sub par"... that doesn't mean poor to me.. it means not up to traditional standards. subpar - definition of subpar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Steve Huff says the same on his review ... it's listed as one of the "cons". "Not as solidly made as a 35 Summilux." Steve. I enjoy KRs website and value the opinion ... which is all his reviews really are. I know he doesn't seem to be very well excepted here but it's nice when someone takes the time to put some info on the internet for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 6, 2011 Share #18 Posted February 6, 2011 To reiterate, Ken said the Summarits were "optically superb." He specifically called the 90 Summarit optics "perfect" and "unbeaten." His sole complaint was that the Summarits were "inferior in price and mechanical quality to (comparable) used Leica lenses." Pretty clear to me (not that I agree). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkochheiser Posted February 6, 2011 Share #19 Posted February 6, 2011 I don't get it. Ken and Steve and many others who have apparently read and believed them talk about inferior build quality for the Summarits as if they had disassembled them and measured tolerances or had put them through some rigorous mechanical tests and knew what they were talking about. I don't believe that they do know what they are talking about in this regard. Where is the evidence? Perhaps if Sean Reid or Erwin Puts had said it I might give it a bit more credibility. I've certainly seen no evidence that my 35 Summarit is in any way inferior mechanically to my 35 'lux. Kent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 6, 2011 Share #20 Posted February 6, 2011 Exactly. Stick with folks like Sean for reviews, and most importantly with your own experience, which is consistent with the experiences of many others on the forum. I don't follow Rockwell, nor would I give his reviews any credence based on the little I've seen. I researched his Summarit reviews only in response to a statement here that he "trashed" them. That was surprising given all the positive reviews I've read. Clearly he didn't do his homework and made sweeping statements about mechanical quality having apparently reviewed one sample. Any reputable reviewer would have delved much deeper. Even his positive comments are hyperbole; no lens is optically "perfect", not even the 90 Summarit. Lens design involves known compromises, even if not apparent in prints. Ken is more entertainer than serious reviewer. I just read the intro to his site, where he states that he "has the sense of humor of a three year old and makes things up." There you have it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.