75 summicron APO or super elmar 21?

[Duane Pandorf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't doubt the 75/2 is the best 75 ever made. I'm just saying, outside f/2, it will be hard to see, compared to how the SEM 21 smokes the other UWAs.

 

Sean reid had a big test with the CV 75 vs Leicas, and that was his conclusion. I use the CV when on the move, because it's tiny and very light, and I use the 75/1.4 for fancy stuff

 

The 75 APO is in a different league than anything Voigtlander makes in the same focal length and the Summarit too.  

[jaapv]

That is not quite Sean Reid's conclusion. The CV is surprisingly close behind - read his review, very interesting.

It is not unusual for short teles to be quite close in performance.

[pgk]

I am under the impression that Sean Reid charges to read his reviews. Why would I want to when I don't know whether he is using lenses which are correctly adjusted and whether his methodology is appropriate? There is undoubtedly sample variation in all lenses - they are built to be within specified tolerances. If out of spec they should be adjusted. Simply testing 'random' samples is not an acceptable way to draw conclusions to me I'm afraid. If I had based my conclusions of the performance of the 75 Summicron on my first copy I would have said that its performance was downright poor. My current copy is at the other end of the scale. Although it might often be unpalatable, sending a lens back to Leica to have it adjusted is at least possible as M lenses are adjustable, and are well worth having adjusted if a more expensive model. I'm not so sure that cheaper lenses are so easily adjustable nor that they are economic to adjust if out or warranty.

[jankap]

Paul, I suppose, it was a misalignment of the rangefinder?

 

Have you seen the variance study of Lens Rentals (Jim Kasson, thanks!)?

These variance problems are far more severe.

Jan

[pgk]

Paul, I suppose, it was a misalignment of the rangefinder?

 

Have you seen the variance study of Lens Rentals (Jim Kasson, thanks!)?

These variance problems are far more severe.

Jan

No, the rangefinder was fine. It was the lens which simply never really got sharp until well stopped down. As I focussed closer the softness got worse. I seem to remember that the lens and the floating element assembly both need to be very carefully adjusted in order to get best performance, which makes sense (though how they do this is a good question). I used to test lenses a long time back and there is variance. Some can be adjusted to maximise their performance (expensive, mechanical lenses - like Leica M), others are as they are (the use of plastic assemblies is fascinating - ask your local dealer for a 'dead' AF lens to dismantle as its very instructive. I imagine whole sections need replacement rather than adjustment).

[jaapv]

I am under the impression that Sean Reid charges to read his reviews. Why would I want to when I don't know whether he is using lenses which are correctly adjusted and whether his methodology is appropriate?

Of course you can't know if you don't read it...

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Chicken & Egg.......

 

I don't take much notice of any of these internet 'gurus' I'm afraid - I suspect that many are jumping on the bandwagon of gear testing without the background or qualifications to do so. Perhaps I should, but no, I'm happy to post my opinions on a few lenses I own on my own website but not prepared to charge for them (few would probably pay anyway). And my opinions are based on substantial usage as opposed to test charts - rather more subjective and real I'm afraid . No one has to read or take notice of them either!

 

Its a funny thing is new gear. I'm bemused by the whole Leica Q lens distortion thing. Many lenses (from top manufacturers) distort (I hate wavy sea horizons if you see what I mean) but few complain about it because its not so easy to define in numerical terms and can be corrected by software anyway. Odd.

[hiepphotog]

Paul, I suppose, it was a misalignment of the rangefinder?

 

Have you seen the variance study of Lens Rentals (Jim Kasson, thanks!)?

These variance problems are far more severe.

Jan

 

Jim Kasson is not from Lens Rentals. It's Roger Cicala. I find his blog very informative and his tests are mostly reliable, especially with the recent ones when he has had more experience using the optical bench and OLAF to check for decentering. The huge advantage of his blog over the others is the large test samples acquiring from the rental house.

 

As for online blogger, beside the limited test sample (though understandable), the methodology is lacking, which is often disguised as "real world" shooting test. Prime example is Mr. Huff. Mr. Reid is a bit better but his resolution test is very limited. Majority of them are not well-lit and only at close distance. He never shot the same scene with different lenses so that his subscribers can truly see the difference in drawing signatures. The perk of going with Mr. Reid is that sometimes he has exclusive Leica review (like the new MM and Lux 28). On the other hand, Mr. Chamber, despite getting the bad rap everywhere, offers much more informative test. He does aperture series test at different distances at hi-res with various full size crops. The guy is quite critical on things that most photographers do not even care or pay attention to like field curvature, de-centering and focus shift. He is quite vocal about what he thinks is important so I don't pay much attention to those. I can form my own opinion from his test shots. Mr. Chamber has better relationship with Zeiss than with Leica. Then there is Jim Kasson. His technical review of noise, dynamic range (signal stuff) is very informative. His resolution test, however, is quite crude.

 

I do testing myself that I believe for self-test, only infinity test would be reliable enough. Any form of wall test (mid- to close-distance) would require much more careful set-up that would test the patience of any photographer. Knowing about sample variation, I can just do my own test set to determine whether I should keep the lens after each purchase. Let's face it, having too many lenses, few would have enough time to truly know a lens after only a few months of use.

[pgk]

..... few would have enough time to truly know a lens after only a few months of use.

I'd say that is a truer statement than you might think. Unless a lens really isn't fit for the purpose it was bought for, it can take a very long time to appreciate all its characteristics (good and bad) - as in several years. I've bought too many lenses, sold most and have a set-up that if I am honest, will serve me well for a very long time indeed. I really shouldn't need anything more.....