pascal_meheut Posted August 23, 2009 Share #21 Posted August 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lars can speak for himself but I suspect his "ramble" was just a roundabout way of saying that he thought the photographs were crap. And he needs to talk about Robert Frank to say so? My point exactly. Not to mention that when someones takes the time to talk to us about a new lens, to show pictures and so on, answering by saying "your pictures are crap" is maybe not very welcomed, not to mention that this is not the issue. I stand by my comment, just a bitter and rude old man with nothing to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Hi pascal_meheut, Take a look here The 24 Summilux on the M8..my review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nicoleica Posted August 23, 2009 Share #22 Posted August 23, 2009 No need to get your knickers in such a twist. Lars can speak for himself but I suspect his "ramble" was just a roundabout way of saying that he thought the photographs were crap. Subtly put Mr. Watts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Åmund Posted August 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted August 23, 2009 Whoah, you are really an old man who does nothing but whining and rambling.We all know that the artistic value of a picture has nothing to do with the equipment. Known that for ages, known that since the beginning of photography probably. Yes, this is just a tool. And like many people (but not all of them), we are interested in the tools we use, we like our tools and we like to talk about our tools. And just in case you did not notice, this is the Leica M8 forum, i.e. a place dedicated to talking about one specific tool. So maybe you thing that you are saying something new and interesting and up to the point by saying that Robert Frank had the talent and not his Leica and that you are the only one aware of that. You're not. Just an old man whining and rambling. I think you are extremely unfair to Lars! I happen to think he is absolutely right and he is a most welcome correction to the gear frenzy some on this forum have worked themselves into. Åmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted August 23, 2009 Share #24 Posted August 23, 2009 I stand by my comment, just a bitter and rude old man with nothing to say. Try to read what he writes oen more time, perhaps? In my opinion, he contributes a lot to this forum, and there are some good points in his comments in this thread also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted August 23, 2009 If people reviewing equipment were only allowed to do so if the accompanying photographs were 'remarkable' there'd be precious few reviews for us to look at. Amateur Photography used to take a photograph of the opposite bank of the Thames from their offices. Presumably the magazine should have been closed down on aesthetic grounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Åmund Posted August 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted August 23, 2009 Try to read what he writes oen more time, perhaps? In my opinion, he contributes a lot to this forum, and there are some good points in his comments in this thread also. :D:D Åmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Åmund Posted August 23, 2009 Share #27 Posted August 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) And he needs to talk about Robert Frank to say so? My point exactly. Not to mention that when someones takes the time to talk to us about a new lens, to show pictures and so on, answering by saying "your pictures are crap" is maybe not very welcomed, not to mention that this is not the issue. I stand by my comment, just a bitter and rude old man with nothing to say. I did not detect any rudeness in Lars´ comment, but I certainly detected it in yours! Åmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 23, 2009 Share #28 Posted August 23, 2009 I'm inclined to agree with Lars. Some of Steve's photographs show that it's a very good lens, but they don't hint at anything in the way of new aesthetic possibilities beyond a slightly more unsharp background than one could get with a f/2.8 24mm. Big deal. Some others could have been taken with any of half a dozen other lenses and no one would have noticed. And "zero" vignetting is nonsense. The amount of fall-off towards the corners to me looks very good for a f/1.4 lens with a 32mm field of view, but it's still perfectly visible in all the shots where the illumination and tone are reasonably consistent into the corners, e.g. the derelict factory, the monument, the water cooler. On a full-frame camera it will be much more pronounced - and probably still very good. That said, if I had $6,000 looking for a home I'd buy one like a shot just for the available light possibilities it opens up. No new aesthetics, just an old-fashioned belief that fast lenses are for low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 23, 2009 Share #29 Posted August 23, 2009 I think you are extremely unfair to Lars! I happen to think he is absolutely right and he is a most welcome correction to the gear frenzy some on this forum have worked themselves into. I did not detect any rudeness in Lars´ comment, but I certainly detected it in yours! As, just like him, you did not detect that talking about gear on a gear dedicated forum is normal, let me not be impressed by the fact you did not detect any rudeness in his comment. I'm not sure you would be able to detect a casino in Vegas. For instance, you and others seems to continue to search for aesthetics value in pictures shown to illustrate how a lens draws, posted in a gear oriented forum and to consider that this is the point. That says it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Åmund Posted August 23, 2009 Share #30 Posted August 23, 2009 As, just like him, you did not detect that talking about gear on a gear dedicated forum is normal, let me not be impressed by the fact you did not detect any rudeness in his comment.I'm not sure you would be able to detect a casino in Vegas. For instance, you and others seems to continue to search for aesthetics value in pictures shown to illustrate how a lens draws, posted in a gear oriented forum and to consider that this is the point. That says it all. Well, as you seem to specialize in rudeness, maybe you should create a forum dedicated to that particular human weakness. Then you could vent your frustrations there and come back to this forum when you´ve learnt some manners Åmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyfel Posted August 23, 2009 Share #31 Posted August 23, 2009 I am sure Pascal was ill advised to chose such strong words to express his opinion. So, shame on him for that. However, I agree 100% with the point he made, namely that the "It´s not the gear, it´s the photographer!" argument does not add anything valuable to this or any other thread simply because the large majority here already knows that the photog is more important than the gear. And the minority who may think talent can be bought with money would not listen anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted August 23, 2009 Share #32 Posted August 23, 2009 Whoah, you are really an old man who does nothing but whining and rambling.We all know that the artistic value of a picture has nothing to do with the equipment. Known that for ages, known that since the beginning of photography probably. Yes, this is just a tool. And like many people (but not all of them), we are interested in the tools we use, we like our tools and we like to talk about our tools. And just in case you did not notice, this is the Leica M8 forum, i.e. a place dedicated to talking about one specific tool. So maybe you thing that you are saying something new and interesting and up to the point by saying that Robert Frank had the talent and not his Leica and that you are the only one aware of that. You're not. Just an old man whining and rambling. I hope the moderator has something to say to this rude, cynical, arrogant, immature, politically incorrect and insulting post. The first time ever that I would request the moderator to intervene in any of the forums I participate in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted August 23, 2009 Share #33 Posted August 23, 2009 This lens does not know the definition of focus shift. I experienced ZERO focus shift with this 24. It performed flawlessly during my short time with it. steve, thanks a lot. now let us hope for an updated summilux 35mm. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 23, 2009 Share #34 Posted August 23, 2009 politically incorrect. Thanks for the compliment. Calling me politically incorrect is very nice of you. Why on earth would I want to be politically correct? BTW, I know that most of you do not see how rude it is to repeat over and over on a gear dedicated forum "it is the talent that matters and your photos are not good enough". I remember somebody mentioning that the pictures were probably "crap". Is that politically correct? Once again, you are on the M8 forum where people talk about the M8, its lenses, accessories and sometimes the expected M9. Not about aesthetic values of photographs. Lot of places for that, even not that far from here. So once again, when someone posts a test of a lens, explaining to him that there is no point to it, that its pictures are not good, that great masters of photography had talent (what a scoop) is unasked for, rude, arrogant, stupid and insulting. My answer is what is called payback and I had a lot of fun writing it as well as saying plenty of the reactions here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted August 23, 2009 Share #35 Posted August 23, 2009 I have now seen quite a number of pictures taken both with the 24 and with the 21 Summilux. And the question I can no longer escape is: All right, but what is the point? None of these pictures look very remarkable. (OK, some remarkable vignetting in some of them.) The only thing remarkable with them is the accompanying statement: "This INCREDIBLE image was made with the FANTASTIC Superlux 1:.01/2mm EXTRATERRESTRIAL!!!" But the looks of the pictures were pretty ho-hum. Maybe these lenses will open up some creative opportunities that somebody will learn to exploit in some striking way sometime in the future. And then what will strike us will be the pictures themselves, and nobody will ask much what lens it was taken through. We will celebrate the photographer and his/her eye, not the gear. What was so remarkable about Robert Frank's Leica? Nothing. It was Frank who was remarkable. It is perfectly in order for us to be interested in gear. But it is not for the gear itself, but for what we can do with it. So, to paraphrase Harry S. Truman: I'm from Sweden, show me. The old man from the Age of Henri Cartier-Bresson's Leica Lars, a lens for € 280.00 21mm f4 : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technik-industrie/95662-ju52-iii.html In my opinion Leica will kick out themselfs by such wonderful lenses with this price-tag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted August 23, 2009 Share #36 Posted August 23, 2009 We've gone from Steve's review of the 21 and 24 to a review of responders. I'm thinking that Lars is probably a good, old-fashioned single-coat with an occasional flare. But I'd need to study his MTF chart to see if he has has any fall-off in the corners. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted August 23, 2009 Share #37 Posted August 23, 2009 If I were to design the perfect lens for the M8, this would be pretty much what it would look like. With the 1.33x crop, the 24mm focal length makes for great "standard" lens. The fact that this one goes to f/1.4 is what it's all about. My favorite lens is the 2,8/25 Biogon ZM. My ONLY gripe is that it's not faster. But then, it didn't cost $6k either... With a 24, 50 and 75 'Lux, you've pretty much got everything you'll ever need, film or digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted August 23, 2009 I must ask: What kind of honest, accurate and subjective review can it be when you ADD vignetting, when you post-process the pictures to death and when you only praise the lenses? Post processing? The only processing that was done to only SOME of the images was to add some vignetting, and I noted this several times. I also have some without. No other PP wad done to any of these images so your "post-process the pictures to death" statement is way off track. The images were converted from RAW, resized and put on the site. Vignetting on SOME was added in ACR for effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share #39 Posted August 23, 2009 If I were to design the perfect lens for the M8, this would be pretty much what it would look like. With the 1.33x crop, the 24mm focal length makes for great "standard" lens. The fact that this one goes to f/1.4 is what it's all about. My favorite lens is the 2,8/25 Biogon ZM. My ONLY gripe is that it's not faster. But then, it didn't cost $6k either... With a 24, 50 and 75 'Lux, you've pretty much got everything you'll ever need, film or digital. I agree! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted August 23, 2009 Wow! Just checked this thread out and not sure what happened! All I did was post my simple thoughts on this lens during my SHORT time with it and it turns into a grouchy, grumpy critique of my photos! Funny. I have stated from day one on my site that I am just writing this stuff to show MY experiences with the gear I shoot. Real world results. I am not out to shoot brick walls, white walls, resolution charts, or a bunch of boring BS. If I like a lens when I shoot it then that is good enough for me. All of this talk of post processing and vignetting. I would like to repeat that NONE of the shots had any PP beyond the raw conversion. I added vignetting to some for effect as I always do. Thats me. My style. I am showing sample photos that I managed to get with a few hours of use. Thats it. I also provided 2-3 full size straight from the camera files. Also, I do this stuff for the fun of it. I make no money from it and I do not charge a penny for these reviews as I feel they are not worth spending money on. They are not technical! You can go pay for a tech review that is more detailed I am sure but I stand by my opinion of this lens. There is no better 24 1.4 lens for any 35mm system THAT I HAVE TRIED. There shouldnt be for $6k! Some of you guys need to relax and chill out! Go get some fresh air! I hear meditation is a good cure for grumpiness Anyway, thanks to all for checking it out! I may add one more full size untouched image for download. It wont be of a brick wall though! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.