Deep into the Beefeaters

[bscott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We discuss the merits of all the Leica lens and bodies but is there really a bad one? I love them all. Is there really a bad lens or body? I'll sober up and read later.

[waileong]

We discuss the merits of all the Leica lens and bodies but is there really a bad one? I love them all. Is there really a bad lens or body? I'll sober up and read later.

 

Of course there are. But it depends on how 'bad' is bad.

[scsambrook]

Ahhh, it depends on what one understands as bad . . .

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives "inferior, inadequate, defective" as its primary meanings. Well, if a mid-60s Summicron is inferior to a 2012 one, then it's a bad lens. But if it produces results which are adequate for the user's needs, then it isn't a bad lens. If your spanking new latest Apo Summicron is broken, then it's also a bad lens. So all Leica lenses (and bodies) can be bad. But most aren't actually bad at all. And although some might be badder than others some of the time, they still might not be so bad as to be really bad . . .

 

Maybe I should try a dose of Beefeaters now . . .

[bscott]

scsambrook, your answer is much better than my question and deserves a toast so cheers to you. I should learn never to post questions after feeling the spirit.

[lct]

For me a bad product is one which disappoints me. For instance i liked much the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit-M 90/28 for its small size and weight but i've been disappointed by its poor resistance to flare compared to my other 90s. Another disappointment came from the Elmarit-R 28/2.8 # 11204 that i liked for its small size and its sharpness in the center but its performance is too poor in the corners on my 5D1. Too much flare and vignetting with the Super-Angulon-R 21/4 as well. Another disappointment with the PA-Curtagon-R 35/4 that i find generally too soft on my 5D1.

[scsambrook]

scsambrook, your answer is much better than my question and deserves a toast so cheers to you. I should learn never to post questions after feeling the spirit.

 

Thanks for that, bscott! But by all means keep feeling the spirit and acting on its prompting:)

[waileong]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The meanings are mostly subjective.

 

Inferior-- clearly, unless one has the best of the best lens around, one's lens is always inferior to the very best lens available. That does not make it 'bad' until one determines how much inferiority is enough for a 'bad' label to be applied.

 

Inadequate-- clearly, that dependson one's purpose. A lens that is adequate for bright light may not be adequate for low light.

 

Defective-- hopefully, nothing subjective here. If something is broken, it must be bad.

 

Hence-- define 'bad' if you want an answer to the question....

 

Ahhh, it depends on what one understands as bad . . .

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives "inferior, inadequate, defective" as its primary meanings. Well, if a mid-60s Summicron is inferior to a 2012 one, then it's a bad lens. But if it produces results which are adequate for the user's needs, then it isn't a bad lens. If your spanking new latest Apo Summicron is broken, then it's also a bad lens. So all Leica lenses (and bodies) can be bad. But most aren't actually bad at all. And although some might be badder than others some of the time, they still might not be so bad as to be really bad . . .

 

Maybe I should try a dose of Beefeaters now . . .

[gjames9142]

I am not sure that a 60's cron is necessarily " worse " than a 2012 version. If you shoot around 5.6 and 8 as I do, and want very high resolution and low contrast, then this is a beautiful lens. Sharpness, a vague term, is not the only criterion for a lens. I once asked Andre Kertesz about the beautiful look if his Satyric Dancer, and he answered " goertz lens - beautiful plastic quality" -- and he wasn't referring to a petroleum product. It's not all about charts and pixels.