Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
roubaix

Summarit- talk to me

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you expect? a Summarit-M 2.5/24 ... for 1450 US, or a Summarit-M 2.5/28 for 1450 US?

 

Then who will buy the Elmarit-M 2.8/24 ASPH. or Elmarit-M 2.8/28 ASPH.?

 

Point taken. (I shall consider myself duly and thoroughly spanked.)

 

What could I have been thinking?

 

-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

 

You wrote:

"Sean, when I described the illustrations you provide as 'banal' it may seem strange, but that wasn't intended as a criticism. The photographs you provide illustrate the points you are trying to make and as such they don't have to be masterpieces - pages of shots illustrating 'bokeh' or edge sharpness spring to mind."

 

Sure, resolution comparisons, CA tests, etc. they're all just a means to an end.

 

"Puts takes a lot of flack for not being the greatest photographer, that's missing the point IMHO, criticism and the production of great work are two completely different things. Just as someone doesn't have to be a great chef to enjoy eating food, one doesn't have to be a great photographer to be a good critic. Sure a 'professional' can offer insights into the process, but that doesn't restrict criticism to professional photographers IMHO."

 

Some may agree with that but I don't.I personally have the most respect for opinions and advice from people who are very skilled and talented in their fields. I'd prefer to learn about cooking from a good chef, about riding from Reg Pridmore, etc. There is, in my mind, something to be said for having knowledge and experience in the field one is "teaching" to others. That person needn't be a professional and some amateur photographers are, IMHO, much more talented than many professionals. I, therefore, certainly understand Walt's position.

 

"By the way Puts lost a lot of royalties from Hove who published his book, they then went into receivership."

 

Clearly, it seems, he does this because he enjoys it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point taken. (I shall consider myself duly and thoroughly spanked.)

 

What could I have been thinking?

 

No disrespect intended, sir. I've thought about the same momentarily as well ...

 

It would make sense if Leica is bound to discontinue the Elmarit 24 however, chances are slim I guess ... f/2.8 is already considered very slow in Leica's book, unless as some have pointed out, if Leica has a 24 cron in their pocket then the current Elmarit 24 could give way to a Summarit 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we glad we're not discussing how poor the M8 is and why Leica should bring out a whole new line of lenses for it?

 

EP and SR have different approaches, as Sean said. Puts never claimed to be a photographer; he's a damned fine technician. And he is strongly against being overly technical, as he repeatedly complains about the fascination of some magazines in reducing everything to a single number.

 

I'm personally glad we've got both Puts and Reid. I read both. And I learn from both.

 

Although I'm more an equipmentizer than a photographer, hard as I fight myself, I still understand Walt's assessment of Herrn Puts' photos. As Sean said, Erwin is an interested amateur.

 

I find the discussion between Rubén and Sean more interesting, though, because it deals more with concepts than with personality and artistic ability.

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the discussion between Rubén and Sean more interesting, though, because it deals more with concepts than with personality and artistic ability.

 

--HC

 

Yes, that's true. Ruben and I have mostly been having a discussion about ideas and that's good exercise for the mind, I think, and a process in which one might learn something or come to a new realization. That's one reason I put energy into it.

 

Some might wonder how reading in the philosophy of science relates to lens reviews but it is relevant for sure. I imagine you've already come to that conclusion Howard.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been off-net for a while (up in the Arctic, in fact) so I'm new to this thread. I must say that of all the posters here I sympathize mostly with Peter Branch.

 

But I do disagree with Sean in some respects. Surely there is such a thing as objectively better or worse optical quality. Take for instance two copy lenses (just in order to get 'art' out of the way). If one of them exhibits less linear distortion, curvature of field, chromatic aberration etc. than the other, then that lens is quantitatively, measurably, yes objectively (!) better than the other because it reproduces the subject more accurately than the other lens does.

 

People are not very objective of course, and may for various reasons prefer distortion, soft corners and colour fringing ... but that is a different matter. The point of this argument is of course that we must keep the objective apples apart from the subjective oranges (or bananas, if you prefer). There are quite a number of lenses that I love even though they are denigrated by the numbers mongers (such as the 5cm/2.8 Elmar, the first 21mm Elmarit, the last pre-ASPH 90mm Summicron, and others) but I do not claim that they are optically superior. It is just that sometimes I do not need all that optical superiority—though I do love the 28mm Summicron too ... maybe I am an optical bigamist.

 

Finally, I do heartily agree that MTF graphs are a very dubious measure of excellence. MTF measuring is not an ISO-standardized procedure, it is just a technology. Practice varies so that you cannot very well compare graphs from two different sources, and maybe not even from the same lab! Which focusing distance? Is re-focusing allowed when stopping down? Was testing done on a sample of one lens, or is this an average of several lenses (and how many, and what kind of average, mean, median or mode)? —Also, an MTF graph tells us next to nothing about resistance to flare, glare or reflexes, matters of great concern to practical photographers. I sold my current 50mm Summicron and bought the Summilux ASPH, not because it it one stop faster or marginally sharper, but because its resistance to the above scourges is far far better.

 

The old man from the Age of Meniscus Lenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But I do disagree with Sean in some respects. Surely there is such a thing as objectively better or worse optical quality. Take for instance two copy lenses (just in order to get 'art' out of the way). If one of them exhibits less linear distortion, curvature of field, chromatic aberration etc. than the other, then that lens is quantitatively, measurably, yes objectively (!) better than the other because it reproduces the subject more accurately than the other lens does.

 

Of course you can compare any specific characteristic like corner resolution or contrast objectively. And if you define a specific application for a lens like a copy lens or a lens that will always be use stopped down and focused at infinity you can even say that lens A will deliver more resolution, less flare and etc., for that application then lens B.

 

But there is not much point in comparing a macro lens to one designed to give peak performance at infinity testing the lenses at some arbitrary common distance. And it is also difficult to conclude anything 'objective' about how the sum of all the objective numbers will perform in terms of any particular photographers preferences and application. Which is why so many find Sean's reviews useful. He presents comparisons with real world examples and lets you decide what is important in your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lars,

 

Welcome back. You wrote:

 

"But I do disagree with Sean in some respects. Surely there is such a thing as objectively better or worse optical quality."

 

Of course there is, so long as one defines a specific technical ideal and then relates a certain kind of performance to that specific ideal. But one must, subjectively, formulate the ideals first. This is one reason that I mentioned Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

 

You may want to reread this thread. Once a technical ideal is defined, one can describe how well a lens has or has not met it. But there is nothing objective about the ideal itself.

 

But there is nothing objective about the ideal itself.

 

You've misunderstood my previous posts. Realize that some in this thread have incorrectly described what I've said because they themselves have misunderstood it. If you quote parts of my posts in your next response, it might be helpful.

 

Its easy to be misunderstood when moving out of the box somewhat because there's a natural human tendency to associate things with their personal existing categories and concepts.

 

If we say that the ideal man is six feet tall we can objectively measure men with respect to that ideal. But the setting of the ideal is subjective. None of it is pre-ordained. If this interest you, by chance, read Kuhn.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lars,

Its easy to be misunderstood when moving out of the box somewhat because there's a natural human tendency to associate things with their personal existing categories and concepts.

-------

 

Exactly. This is what I meant by making the distinction between measurable apples and subjective oranges.

 

--------------------------

If we say that the ideal man is six feet tall we can objectively measure men with respect to that ideal. But the setting of the ideal is subjective. None of it is pre-ordained. If this interest you, by chance, read Kuhn.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Well, I did read Kuhn's book when it appeared, and I still have it on one of my shelves (the one for epistemology). Now some seem to take Kuhn's argument as a plea for scientific relativism. I do not know if that was Kuhn's intention – he is not always very clear on that point – but it could as well be read as a description of how we improve our scientific models (or 'paradigms') by strange hops, jumps and sideways slides. The fact that there is an actual improvement is clear; our present description of the universe is obviously both more accurate and more comprehensive than that in the Almagest. Pace the fashionable 'thinkers' who claim that the universe is a social construct, to be amended arbitrarily ...

 

Ideals? I don't deal in them. I am more interested in ascertainable facts. And your lens reviews are probably very good, but I cannot get into your site because your software does not recognize my payment by VISA ...

 

The old man from the Age of Facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I did read Kuhn's book when it appeared, and I still have it on one of my shelves (the one for epistemology). Now some seem to take Kuhn's argument as a plea for scientific relativism. I do not know if that was Kuhn's intention – he is not always very clear on that point – but it could as well be read as a description of how we improve our scientific models (or 'paradigms') by strange hops, jumps and sideways slides. The fact that there is an actual improvement is clear; our present description of the universe is obviously both more accurate and more comprehensive than that in the Almagest. Pace the fashionable 'thinkers' who claim that the universe is a social construct, to be amended arbitrarily ...

 

Ideals? I don't deal in them. I am more interested in ascertainable facts. And your lens reviews are probably very good, but I cannot get into your site because your software does not recognize my payment by VISA ...

 

The old man from the Age of Facts

 

I don't have any credit card software on my site at all. It's all done by PayPal. E-mail me and we'll see if we can sort you out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to find the press release they sent me so I can't check on the hoods yet. I'll post if I find it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning that we have to add those sums to the consumer prices. I do not think that Cosina/Voigtländer will feel too threatened. Anyone who will want a 2.5 35mm lens – and this is in fact the new standard lens for the M8 – will probably go for the least expensive he can find.

 

The old man from the Age of Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy