Summicron 75mm versus CV 75mm-Sean Reid's new review

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Enjoyed your 75 review as usual Sean. Will you be printing your first shot of Daytona beach on Heavyweight Matte?

 

Wilson

[sean_reid]

Enjoyed your 75 review as usual Sean. Will you be printing your first shot of Daytona beach on Heavyweight Matte?

 

Wilson

 

Thanks Wilson. Do you mean the second one (of the woman and the boy)?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hankg]

Irwin has commented negatively on Sean's review. His main point seems to be

 

The eye as an instrument for measurement is notoriously weak and one needs additional equipment to supplement and correct the conclusions of the eye.

He mentions chromatic aberration (Sean's review showed the Leica to be dramatically and visibly better) as well as vignetteing and focus shift which can be measured on the bench to show the Leica superior (but in a print viewed by the human eye that advantage may be insignificant or invisible).

 

While the optical scientific benchmarks that Irwin references can be useful, looking at numbers can give you a very distorted view of what those numbers will mean in everyday performance viewed by that "notoriously weak instrument" the human eye. As my prints will not be evaluated by lab instruments but by eye I find Sean's method of more practical use to me. That is not to discount the value of lab tests but Sean puts all those numbers into perspective by showing what there significance is in real world performance. Picking a speaker based on lab test numbers is always a bad idea, you need to go by your ears, as poor an instrument as they may be. You may prefer the 'inferior' device. A lens is the same, different looks will have different values to different photographers and it's only looking at images that you can get a useful perspective on what you might like.

 

While viewing different size prints would be ideal, seeing crops and images on the web is still useful and certainly more useful then a collection of graphs. You can overlay MTF charts, distortion and vignetting charts and just pick the lens with the best numbers and wind up making the absolutely wrong choice. Its really impossible to know what the signature of a lens will be by looking at charts. Prose about precise drawing and clarity does little good if you cannot illustrate your prose with images.

[tom0511]

This was moved to the Digital Forum but started out in the Consumer Forum as a review of two lenses. As a former Newspaper Photographer for a Midwestern daily(Wisconsin State Journal), I'd like to bring a professional viewpoint here.

One (at least I don't) does not purchase cameras and lenses based on the percieved or measured picture quality. After a certain level, the percieved difference really doesn't matter. What is important is the 'Art' in your photography. Individuals that produce photography as an occupation don't suceed based on using the lens or lenses with the highest resolution or whatever optical quality you want to use as a criteria. They succeed because they are able to imploy these tools better than others.

What the Professional wants is equipment that will work, work well and continue to work. That is why Nikon, Canon and Leica systems are used, the cameras and lenses are mechanically better built and to higher standards than competing brands.

For photojournalism I used two systems, the Nikon and Leica, starting out with Nikon F's and an M3. I could care less that another brand of a lens had a higher rating in some test. The lenses that these two companies produced were/are more than adequate for any job ranging from portraits, spot news to Weddings I occasionally did. The latest Leica M system Aspherical lenses I have acquired are the sharpest lenses I have used for my M6 and M7. The 75mm AA is simply stunning for portraits eclipsing my long time favorites, the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor/90mm Summicron. I have the latest 90mm A Summicron also but much prefer the 75mm AA. I also have a full set of RF lenses for my M3 and they are still sharp enough to do any job that is needed.

I read these types of discussions in many technical areas where the debate/discussion over minutia completely over shadows the intended purpose of the equipment.

It's not my intent to disparage anyone's testing or any equipment of any manufacture, but to add another opinion about what's important to photography.-Dick

 

If we talk about reliability I would like to mention that out of 12 Leica-M lenses I own,

3 had to be sent in for calibration because of wrong focus (including a brand new 50/1.4asph), at least 2 do show problems with focus shift. A new 24/2.8asph would not take the hood without massive forced and therefore had to be exchanged.

Well, once they are fine they seem to stay fine and reliable.

 

Regarding lens testing:

Personally I enjoy Seans Reviews a lot. However I would not make the main part of my decision based on a review. Why?

1) Real life photography means shooting at different f-stops, at different distances, in different light. A review is very limited in this regard. For example the 50/2.8 is said to be sharper than the 50asph at short distances. Would we see this in a review. Or if the review was shooting the 50s at short distances, would we come to the (wrong) conclusion that the 50/2.8 was sharper lens overall? A lens could show more contrast under controlled light but be less flare-resistant which could lead to a very different behaviour under certain light situations.

2) Color reproduction - IMO also a point wich is hard to see in a review.

3) OOF-Rendering- Seans review are a very positive exception because he does include it, but same here: one scene.

4) sample variation

 

Cheers, Tom

2)

[sean_reid]

I must note Erwin's tact, he never criticizes me by name but rather by omission. There may also be various politics involved in those comments (which is probably inevitable). I was very critical of Erwin's early comparisons of the M8 and Canon 5D (some of which were out of focus and which he retracted) and I was also critical of some of the comments made in my friend Mike Johnston's review of the M8. Erwin probably hasn't been very happy with me for some time now. Anyone who's ever dealt with university and corporate personal dynamics knows which way those sorts of thing usually go, what the repercussions can be, etc. - it is all as old as the sea. There are thousands of people reading Reid Reviews now and the more popular the site gets, the more criticism I will draw, especially because my approach is sometimes very different from the norm. I expect that and will roll with it. I started writing reviews because many of the reviews I read were not addressing themselves to what I really needed to know as a photographer. I'm not writing to a general audience and RR is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. I'm writing very specifically to serious photographers who care more about pictures than about equipment, graphs, MTF statistics, etc.

 

There are many cliches and over-generalizations in many of the lens reviews and discussions I read. On the other end of the scale, there are also plenty of technical discussions that make much of numerical or pseudo-scientific differences that may mean little in actual photography, all the while ignoring visual and/or practical differences that may matter very much. So, the proof is in the pudding and, a few years from now, many photographers will be able to look back and judge for themselves whether or not my reviews have "gone for the jugular" (as Winogrand often said).

 

I respect Erwin's strengths but he and I approach photography (and thus reviewing) from very different perspectives. Erwin is very technically knowledgeable about lenses but he's not a working photographer and has never, to my knowledge, been one. I've been a professional photographer for over twenty years and also worked as a high-end exhibition printer for several prominent photographers. What I say about what I see is based on those experiences as well as on a long study of photographs and visual art generally. My lens reviews don't always jibe with the established views and it was only a matter of time before various people started taking exception to them. Erwin, for example, still insists that I am wrong about the dynamic range advantages of lower contrast lenses, even though one can see the difference in histograms and many photographers have come to see the reality of those differences through direct experience. In some circles, my observations about lens contrast are still considered either ignorant or heretical.

 

I think that when engineers speak to engineers about engineering, they, appropriately, have a language for that. So too for lens designers speaking to other lens designers, etc. Using certain technical language and terms in lens reviews often sounds quite impressive and definitive but, in the end, may not be very successful at communicating the things that matter most to a serious photographer (as opposed to an equipment hobbyist).

 

My own approach is quite different, I don't ever pretend to be a scientist or an engineer or a lens designer or anything of the sort. I'm just a photographer and ultimately, my approach to this reviewing is really pretty simple. I tend to describe the things I review in pragmatic and visual, rather than technical, terms. A person who has read, and been struck by, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince" may come to understand exactly what my reviews are about and where I'm coming from.

 

In the end, photographers will have to see for themselves whether my descriptions of various lenses, cameras, etc. have been on the money. So far, the feedback I'm getting is that many working photographers, who try the equipment I review, are finding it to be much as I describe it. I get e-mails (from photojournalists in particular, but also from all kind of photographers) who tell me that I'm emphasizing the kind of things they care about. My work is far from perfect, but I do try hard to describe "the thing itself".

 

This response from Erwin may well be just the tip of an iceberg. So be it. I just happened to remember, however, that Erwin doesn't have a current subscription to RR and so I don't believe he's actually even read the review in question...hmm

 

Cheers all,

 

Sean

[hankg]

 

Regarding lens testing:

Personally I enjoy Seans Reviews a lot. However I would not make the main part of my decision based on a review. Why?

1) Real life photography means shooting at different f-stops, at different distances, in different light. A review is very limited in this regard. For example the 50/2.8 is said to be sharper than the 50asph at short distances. Would we see this in a review. Or if the review was shooting the 50s at short distances, would we come to the (wrong) conclusion that the 50/2.8 was sharper lens overall? A lens could show more contrast under controlled light but be less flare-resistant which could lead to a very different behaviour under certain light situations.

2) Color reproduction - IMO also a point wich is hard to see in a review.

3) OOF-Rendering- Seans review are a very positive exception because he does include it, but same here: one scene.

4) sample variation

 

Cheers, Tom

2)

 

In the end you will only know if a lens is for you after some intensive use in different conditions. Still any information that can inform what is likely to be a good fit is helpful and may save some time and money. I have had the M8 for 4 months and I have bought 8 lenses sold 5 and kept 3. I think I am now done (28/2, 50/1.4, 90/4) but it can get expensive arriving at your ideal kit when you are starting with a blank slate with a new system that has a different format and a different viewing system then what you have used for years (24x36 digital) .

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Regarding lens testing:

Personally I enjoy Seans Reviews a lot. However I would not make the main part of my decision based on a review. Why?

1) Real life photography means shooting at different f-stops, at different distances, in different light. A review is very limited in this regard. For example the 50/2.8 is said to be sharper than the 50asph at short distances. Would we see this in a review. Or if the review was shooting the 50s at short distances, would we come to the (wrong) conclusion that the 50/2.8 was sharper lens overall? A lens could show more contrast under controlled light but be less flare-resistant which could lead to a very different behaviour under certain light situations.

2) Color reproduction - IMO also a point wich is hard to see in a review.

3) OOF-Rendering- Seans review are a very positive exception because he does include it, but same here: one scene.

4) sample variation

 

Cheers, Tom

2)

 

I agree that one shouldn't make purchase decisions based solely on reviews. There's no way that any one review can possibly cover the myriad of subjects, focus distances, lighting variations, etc. that exist in photography and in the world. No matter how extensive a review is, it can never cover everything. In fact, until one has a given camera or lens in his or her hands, everything is hypothesis. We can never know for sure what tools will work best for us until we use them ourselves.

 

So what's the value in a good review? It can help one to discover which cameras, lenses, etc. might (for a given individual) merit further investigation. It may also bring one to consider aspects that weren't considered before -- ideas that had not yet come to one. So, its just a piece of the puzzle. I never, in my reviews, tell people what they should buy, I just try to give them an accurate picture (to the best of my abilities) of a given thing as I experience it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[geoffreyg]

Sean -

 

I for one really enjoy your tests and find them very much on the mark. While there is surely additional information that can come from a different, perhaps more clinical approach, there is nothing quite as good as a point of view, well documented, and clearly stated. Many thanks.

 

And anyone working off "The Little Prince" deserves an additional bit of encouragement - what a lovely transition to suggest. Made my day.

 

Geoff

[george_b]

To add from the perspective of a user of Leica M.

I read the review of of the lenses and purchased the Voiglander 75 based on the following but in no specific order:

 

* The review and hence performance

* Price

* Availability

 

It matters very little if the lens you want is not available in any of the UK outlets . . .

I liked the 75mm so much I just purchased the new Voiglander 25mm f4.0 (based on the reviews) which now comes with a bayonet mount and is rangefinder coupled. Again I am well pleased with the results with the little chance I have had to use it so far. Curiously when mounted my M8 thinks it is a 35mm lens if I set it to detect the lens.

 

George

[egibaud]

Hi,

 

I ordered my cv75 last Friday and got it this morning, less than a week from California to the Canary Islands, Spain using Express Mail, faster than Fedex when I got my CV15

 

I'll be doing some testing this weekend.

 

One question though.... I think the filter is 43mm, any idea where to find a IR/UV this side. I've been told Leica's one are not available. What other options B+W? where to get it?

 

And, buy the way, popflash is limiting 39mm IR/UV filter to 1 unit order only. Anyone knows where I could order more than one at a time? I am on a waiting list in Spain, and I don't want to wait any longer.

 

Thanks

 

Eric

[george_b]

Hi,

 

I ordered my cv75 last Friday and got it this morning, less than a week from California to the Canary Islands, Spain using Express Mail, faster than Fedex when I got my CV15

 

I'll be doing some testing this weekend.

 

One question though.... I think the filter is 43mm, any idea where to find a IR/UV this side. I've been told Leica's one are not available. What other options B+W? where to get it?

 

And, buy the way, popflash is limiting 39mm IR/UV filter to 1 unit order only. Anyone knows where I could order more than one at a time? I am on a waiting list in Spain, and I don't want to wait any longer.

 

Thanks

 

Eric

 

Try Photographic Equipment Sales - Robert White they sell B+W UV-IR-CUT 43mm filters @ £32.00 which is where my lens, M screw/bayonet adapter and filter were purchased, it seems to work just fine on my CV75mm.

George

[rosuna]

I respect Erwin's strengths but he and I approach photography (and thus reviewing) from very different perspectives. Erwin is very technically knowledgeable about lenses but he's not a working photographer and has never, to my knowledge, been one. I've been a professional photographer for over twenty years and also worked as a high-end exhibition printer for several prominent photographers. What I say about what I see is based on those experiences as well as on a long study of photographs and visual art generally. My lens reviews don't always jibe with the established views and it was only a matter of time before various people started taking exception to them. Erwin, for example, still insists that I am wrong about the dynamic range advantages of lower contrast lenses, even though one can see the difference in histograms and many photographers have come to see the reality of those differences through direct experience. In some circles, my observations about lens contrast are still considered either ignorant or heretical.

 

I like Erwin's writtings because I learn a lot from them. I like your articles too, due to the same reason.

 

What is your opinion about Geoffrey Crawley's reviews of lenses?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

We

I must note Erwin's tact, he never criticizes me by name but rather by omission. There may also be various politics involved in those comments (which is probably inevitable). I was very critical of Erwin's early comparisons of the M8 and Canon 5D (some of which were out of focus and which he retracted) and I was also critical of some of the comments made in my friend Mike Johnston's review of the M8. Erwin probably hasn't been very happy with me for some time now. Anyone who's ever dealt with university and corporate personal dynamics knows which way those sorts of thing usually go, what the repercussions can be, etc. - it is all as old as the sea. There are thousands of people reading Reid Reviews now and the more popular the site gets, the more criticism I will draw, especially because my approach is sometimes very different from the norm. I expect that and will roll with it. I started writing reviews because many of the reviews I read were not addressing themselves to what I really needed to know as a photographer. I'm not writing to a general audience and RR is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. I'm writing very specifically to serious photographers who care more about pictures than about equipment, graphs, MTF statistics, etc.

 

There are many cliches and over-generalizations in many of the lens reviews and discussions I read. On the other end of the scale, there are also plenty of technical discussions that make much of numerical or pseudo-scientific differences that may mean little in actual photography, all the while ignoring visual and/or practical differences that may matter very much. So, the proof is in the pudding and, a few years from now, many photographers will be able to look back and judge for themselves whether or not my reviews have "gone for the jugular" (as Winogrand often said).

 

I respect Erwin's strengths but he and I approach photography (and thus reviewing) from very different perspectives. Erwin is very technically knowledgeable about lenses but he's not a working photographer and has never, to my knowledge, been one. I've been a professional photographer for over twenty years and also worked as a high-end exhibition printer for several prominent photographers. What I say about what I see is based on those experiences as well as on a long study of photographs and visual art generally. My lens reviews don't always jibe with the established views and it was only a matter of time before various people started taking exception to them. Erwin, for example, still insists that I am wrong about the dynamic range advantages of lower contrast lenses, even though one can see the difference in histograms and many photographers have come to see the reality of those differences through direct experience. In some circles, my observations about lens contrast are still considered either ignorant or heretical.

 

I think that when engineers speak to engineers about engineering, they, appropriately, have a language for that. So too for lens designers speaking to other lens designers, etc. Using certain technical language and terms in lens reviews often sounds quite impressive and definitive but, in the end, may not be very successful at communicating the things that matter most to a serious photographer (as opposed to an equipment hobbyist).

 

My own approach is quite different, I don't ever pretend to be a scientist or an engineer or a lens designer or anything of the sort. I'm just a photographer and ultimately, my approach to this reviewing is really pretty simple. I tend to describe the things I review in pragmatic and visual, rather than technical, terms. A person who has read, and been struck by, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince" may come to understand exactly what my reviews are about and where I'm coming from.

 

In the end, photographers will have to see for themselves whether my descriptions of various lenses, cameras, etc. have been on the money. So far, the feedback I'm getting is that many working photographers, who try the equipment I review, are finding it to be much as I describe it. I get e-mails (from photojournalists in particular, but also from all kind of photographers) who tell me that I'm emphasizing the kind of things they care about. My work is far from perfect, but I do try hard to describe "the thing itself".

 

This response from Erwin may well be just the tip of an iceberg. So be it. I just happened to remember, however, that Erwin doesn't have a current subscription to RR and so I don't believe he's actually even read the review in question...hmm

 

Cheers all,

 

Sean

 

He does not like me either, I got a e-mail from him back in the DMR days and he was not very friendly

[rosuna]

It would be a good idea to make a list of people who doesn't like other people. It would allow to introduce a (statistically) significant variable in the valuation of reviews and comments.

 

I like you all!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Just to add a few notes here Sean and I are good friends and we do respect each other quite a bit and i do love his writings and reviews and do trust in them but any review should be used as part of a puzzle in a lens or camera purchase. You should not just read a article and run out and buy it although probably okay but may not fit your personal needs. But even my many years in this I do my homework and read what I can and go by what users say and read the reviews and make informed decisions before I buy. It may not seem like that becuase i have many lenses but i also buy lenses to try out and see if they really work for me and if they don't I will sell them and try something else out , reading is one thing and doing your research is another but getting in the field on what you shoot is the ultimate test on what you like and dislike. Sorry I am not a big fan of Erwin but I sometimes read his lens reviews only as a reference but digital bodies i won't bother to read his. i have far more experience than many on digital bodies so i don't put faith there but do take all the information that is out there and use it to make a informed decision and Sean will say the exact same thing. Folks you need to do your homework it really is that simple. If you look at some new owners buying the M8 it is very obvious they did not read enough to get a idea on it.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It would be a good idea to make a list of people who doesn't like other people. It would allow to introduce a (statistically) significant variable in the valuation of reviews and comments.

 

I like you all!

 

Well he is what he is and some folks are just a threat to his views but that is okay he does have some good info just need to read between the lines sometimes.

[geoffreyg]

Sean's review are useful for their "hands-on" approach, and they really talk to the use of the lens. Irwin's serve a different purpose, totally. We are lucky to have both.

[egibaud]

Sean Reviews are very handy. If you assume his opinion may be partial, well, dead simple, you just don't read the text and you can just look at the pics so you make your own opinion.

 

This is basically the difference between Sean's reviews and what we generally read in magazines. Sean shows us the pics he has made so he can build a report. Magazine normally just give us the conclusions and a few statistical / technical data.

 

Thank you Sean.

 

Eric

[Joe Mondello]

A person who has read, and been struck by, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince" may come to understand exactly what my reviews are about and where I'm coming from.

 

Cheers all,

 

Sean

 

Just in case some are unfamiliar with the wonderful story and writer, it may be that Sean is referring to this quote . . .

 

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

When I first considered a Leica M8, I went to look at what Leica lenses were going for and was nearly convinced I simply wouldn't be able to afford the kit.

 

Sean's reviews showed me that the far less expensive alternative of CV lenses did not come at a commensurate penalty in quality and when my M8 arrived and my one 1963 DR Summicron 50/2 wouldn't even mount on it, I felt confident that I could and would get good results with CV lenses. I have not been disappointed.

 

If I ever decide that I need more than CV offers in terms of build or optics, when I sell them I would take a relatively painless hit, but in the meanwhile I am more than happy with my CV glass and M8 combo -- thanks in no small measure to Sean Reid.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[carstenw]

I thought that Sean's comment wrt. The Little Prince was with regards to Puts' "tech talk", and Saint-Exupery's comments about adults and "important" grown-up talk, versus "childish" simplicity and directness I am also a fan of the latter.

 

Now I am all curious. Sean, will you clarify?