Why are we obsessed by 'absolute performance'?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK. I've just come back from a week away and I've been going through my photos. As a bit of an experiment I took two identical focal length and aperture lenses - both 35mm f/1.4 Summiluxes, a pre-aspheric and a pre-FLE aspheric - and I used both though not to take comparison images since this was not my aim.

 

Despite the difference in the age of their designs, both produced technically excellent images. Contrast, clarity of detail, etc., is fine from both given the caveat that the pre-aspheric was rarely used wide open and when it was I used it on subjects where its flaws at full aperture would be minimal.

 

Both could be forced to flare although flare was not a problem for either lens providing I didn't do silly things (well I did, but I expected the resulting images to show it).

 

I actually preferred using the pre-aspheric - to me its size and ergonomics are preferably which is, I accept, a quite personal thing. But what I found most interesting was that I have used both lenses enough to appreciate their characteristics and my primary requirement of them is consistence and reliability in performance terms rather than absolute performance. And I feel that the pre-aspheric probably suits me better in this respect although I am talking in nuances here.

 

So to the point. Given that Leica have not made anything less than 'good' lenses, and usually 'excellent' to 'superb' lenses for a very long time, why are we more obsessed with absolute performance figures when looking at new Leica (or other manufacturer's) lens data rather than appreciating other important aspects of their design such as ergonomics and other 'usability' attributes (filter size consistency and so on)?

 

Perhaps I should add that I do shoot wide open quite often so I do appreciate and use the aspheric Summiluxes wide open and it is here where they are substantially better than none aspheric lenses, but I do wonder about the concept of 'absolute' performance and whether it overshadows other characteristics and the reality of most of the uses they get put too. I had and got rid of the Canon 85mm f/1.2 LMkI not because its performance was anything less than spectacular - it performs superbly - but because its ergonomics and usability were, for me, unacceptable.

[harvey999999]

If we're talking about ergonomics and usability, surely the most important factor is the camera (size, grip etc) rather than the lens per se. I note a Steve Huff review of the Canon 85 f1.2 emphasised how well it fitted with the Canon 6d camera as a pair. I find the design of my M9-P, for example, is not at all comfortable to hold, regardless of the lens, compared to a Canon DSLR with its moulded handgrip...…just saying….

[pgk]

I note a Steve Huff review of the Canon 85 f1.2 emphasised how well it fitted with the Canon 6d camera as a pair.

Its difficult to absolutely 'nail' focus with due I think, to the size of the viewing point within the viewfinder, and switching to the manual 'power focus' just didn't help or do it for me at all - whilst I could get precise focus with this lens (and its was fabulous when I did) I sometimes didn't and the unreliability of the precise focus was very frustrating. But worst of all is that the lens has a tendency to slip from one's grasp when dismounted due to its weight and the rounded fluting of its rear section design, and a dropped lens can negate ALL its attributes (I never actually dropped mine but came close too many times. And the plastic hood is truly flimsy. He's right in that it feels fine once on a camera and in use .....

 

But ergonomics is a personal thing and I like the M9 although having used it extensively with and without the grip I prefer its handling without.

[earleygallery]

We?

 

I'm certainly not!

[Ecar]

Same here.

Currently spending a few days in Paris with MM/M9 and 3 Nikkor lenses from the 50s/60s.

The latest and greatest ASPH glass are staying home - along with the M240.

I don't feel like my photography is getting any worse (or better, for that matter).

Just a different - and interesting - challenge.

[pgk]

We?

 

I'm certainly not!

OK I'll rephrase it "Why is there so much obsession with....." Happy now?

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Absolute performance" - No

"Performance absolutely" - Yes

[IWC Doppel]

I do think there is a marketing need to promote ever better resolution and 'accuracy' and lets not forget that most manufacturers have aspired to perfection through evolution of design. Leica have as we know endeavour to better manage ergonomics at the same time. I think your experience is a good example of why older glass has a great deal of interest for a lot of us, particularly some other qualities that matter too outside of absolute performance

 

I loved my 35 Summilux ASPH, only sold it when I tried and preferred the Aspherical. only 25% of my lenses are current Leica designs

[Paul J]

There is a certain look i like. A high performance lens provides that.

 

There are other certain looks I like too and I will very happily use those lenses when I want to, when the look is right. At times I shoot with these lenses more so.

 

I will certainly agree that almost all of the character lenses have been superseded and I think that is a great shame. I really wish there was a character range from Leica. Something with some wow factor. I guess though, they need to sustain their business and what does that most are lenses that are modern and conform to modern aesthetics of perfection.

 

I suggest it's just plain and simple marketing. But now we have perfect lenses it would be great if we had some more choice as well. It's why I like lenses like the Noctilux and 75mm Summilux, these lenses are the best of both worlds. I often shoot wide open, even on important work, even though it's not as sharp as stopped down. It's not about performance it's about aesthetic and that is what wins over in these instances.

[Paul J]

Also, just to add, in some ways I'm hell bent on performance. Sometimes I want to see very pore and every perfect detail. I just like that. I love that presence that it offers in an image.

[M9reno]

I really wish there was a character range from Leica.

 

The range exists! In a fit of insanity I just bought a 1937 Thambar. Many other Leica oldies are overflowing with character.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I would rather buy new or recent lenses purely because they are more likely to be in better condition and not require a service, etc. etc.

[Paul J]

The range exists! In a fit of insanity I just bought a 1937 Thambar. Many other Leica oldies are overflowing with character.

 

I love that lens. Finding an old lens that works well, has good glass and works for years to come is tricky, time consuming and expensive. It's a bit of a lottery at times. I'm talking about a range of new lenses that offer that character with a warranty etc.

 

Who would make a Thambar in this day and age? But wouldn't it be great?

[M9reno]

Speaking of which, here's an old joke: (credit: Leica Announces APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH Lens - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum)

 

Leica Announces APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH Lens

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH Leica adds compact and innovative soft focus portrait lens to its range

 

Northvale, N.J., April 1, 2005-Leica Camera has announced the return of its legendary softfocus portrait lens to its range of lenses for Leica rangefinder cameras. The original LEICA THAMBAR 90mm f/2.2 was produced in extremely limited numbers, during the middle and late 1930s. Its unique characteristics and scarcity and since made one of the most sought after of all Leica lenses. This legendary lens now returns. The LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH is the first lens of this class to feature a sinking element. During focusing, the last lens element's position sinks in relation to the rest of the optical system. To take complete advantage of the sinking element, a highly precise adjustment mechanism has been used.

 

The natural perspective of the 90mm focal length together with the soft focus technology enables better than true-to-life renderings of the subject and is useful for many applications ranging from portrait to landscape photography. "Better than true-to-life photographs happen spontaneously - in the daytime and at night, from a distance or at close quarters, or when one's girl friend wants her picture taken. The universal LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH is ideal in these situations. For example, it produces a natural softening effect in portraits so that the face's defects and inadequacies (up to but no including double chins) are minimized without looking artificial. The lens's compact dimensions - the field of view of the 90mm viewfinder frame is not restricted by the lens on the camera - and use of a depleted uranium body - which provides a satisfying sense of heft and substance - make for excellent handling. This last feature also adds a pleasing layer of fog to most films. Together with Hermes designed carrying case, the universal LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH forms a versatile camera outfit," says Jean-Jacques Guignol, product manager photo at Leica Camera AG.

 

Even at small apertures, the LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH produces soft focus effects. The use of advanced optical design techniques and state-of-the-art coating technology allowed the lens's distinctive lack of sharpness to be preserved, regardless of aperature setting, ensuring "enhanced" image impressions at any distance and in any light.

 

The optical design consists of five lens elements in seven component groups. A homogeneously poor imaging performance over the entire image field is achieved by using random-refraction glass types, two with partial anonymous dispersion, one of which originates from the former CocaCola bottle plant.

 

"Unlike most Leica lenses, the LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH was developed by Leica accounting and marketing specialists during the company's Oktoberfest celebration. Like the Leica M5, it is a particularly fine example of Leica responding to market demands, and is made of over-priced materials and meticulously assembled by hand at our new Kiev factory. The combination of state-of-the-art Hermes styling and Soviet craftsmanship ensures the constant quality of every single Leica lens," adds Jean-Jacques Viau.

 

The LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH comes with a special built-in telescopic lens anti-hood to facilitate the gathering of stray light or dirt and a Hermes ostrich skin carrying case. The well-balanced proportions of the 7 kg. lens encourage hours of use followed by physical therapy.

 

The LEICA APO-THAMBAR-M 90mm f/2.0 ASPH will be available at authorized Leica dealers in May 2005 at a manufacturers suggested price of 9000 euros. Leica Camera, Inc.)

[earleygallery]

OK I'll rephrase it "Why is there so much obsession with....." Happy now?

 

Big boys toys mostly, mine's better than yours na na, na na naah!

[M9reno]

Mine is SOFTER than yours!

[Paul J]

Big boys toys mostly, mine's better than yours na na, na na naah!

 

Do you think? I think there is a lot of that but I think the over riding thing is there a general need and a wish for these lenses though. Many applications need it and then because it's available there comes a wish to have it because of the look, or whatever.

 

I still, after a couple years of owning these lenses, look at pictures and just think wow.

[philipus]

Leica's marketing effort, which over the years has infused the brand with almost mythical qualities, is the source of today's hype. A great way to create a loyal following, methinks. And when that following, be it the Huffs, Seals, Rockwells or Diglloyds, continues to praise the brand online, well then you have yourself a lovely little perpetuum mobile puttering away into the future, a true snowball effect. Sometimes I wonder if Leica's pretty incomprehensible marketing harakiris, in the shape of ridiculous "special editions" and "Mini M"s, are deliberately executed in order to provide a perverse balance to this myth.

 

Reading comments online, including here at LUF and in particular in its lenses and various digital M subfora, it seems that a lot of users are simply keen pixel peepers who only want optically-technically perfect imagery of things like plants and brickwalls. I often smile at comments about the "rendering" of lenses and the plasticity etc of the images "captured". It's quite funny, in the peculiar sense of the word, and I believe that a lot of it is simply a way for people to justify to themselves the spending of around 10,000 Euro on a camera and a lens.

 

That said, being interested in pretty much any type of technology, I do appreciate the performance of modern lenses. I am lucky to be able to own two current Leica lenses. By performance I mean that the lens doesn't flare out an image, rendering it useless, when the sun's in the frame, that it is sharp, which is a quality I like, and that it is easy to use. Beyond this, I don't obsess over performance or wax lyrical over the mythical qualities of "Leica glass", a term I dislike. Whether one has spent a fortune on digital Ms or a few hundred Euros (which could also be a fortune) on analogue Ms, it is a very healthy sign that one appreciates and uses older lenses, because they do have very much to offer. Those who don't, but only shoot 21 Summiluxes, Noctiluxes or 50 APOs receive little admiration from me.

[Paul J]

Those who don't, but only shoot 21 Summiluxes, Noctiluxes or 50 APOs receive little admiration from me.

 

I don't think anyone should get admiration for the lenses they buy, but the pictures they make with them. Does it really matter which lenses they make them with?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaques]

yeah- I don't own a single Leica lens made this Century. I am perfectly happy with my 1973 Summicron 50. It was sharp enough then- it is sharp enough now. Same goes for my entire arsenal of vintage glass- and I can get 4 old lenses for the price of one new one. Consequently I have maybe 8 - 50mm lenses- quantity over cutting edge...

 

and anyhow- personally- I agree content is infinitely more important than equipment. Photos were sharp in the 1890's- and who cares about some perceived lens distortion anyway? Sure it isn't that simple... but I have never once looked at a photo and thought about what lens was used to take it. Either it is good or it is crap (or somewhere in-between): most of mine are crap- so why waste even more money on more expensive lenses? I would still just be polishing turds so to speak. Kind of like listening to Bieber on a premium tube amp with a set of Golden Tannoys... but not that godawful.