I don't like the usual Puts bashing. It is of course OK if it is justifiedly directed against the validity of his results but it is ugly when it is personal. And although it is impossible to defend tout court everything about whatever Puts has ever written it is still possible to say that, on balance, his writings are more beneficial than harmful to our small rangefinder community.
More often than not, real world shooting confims his evalutations - surely a testament to his optical testing. Whether such an optical expertise is required to actually use creatively the lenses is beside the point. By analogy, it would be most unusual if a race driver knew nothing about the engine of her car but it is certainly not unimaginable. So, it is a possibility. Similarly, whether Puts is an artistic photographer or not makes no difference to the validity of his optical reviews.
Also, as far as I can see from my photographic efforts that have gone awry, it takes no special effort to take a lens to its limits. Shoot contre jour or against a strong light source for flare. Shoot a flat surface for some distortion. Top it all with some coma from small light sources near the corners. Lens bad behaviour: there's nothing to it, it's a cinch. It is of course much, much harder to circumnavigate around these optical pitfalls without losing the photo, something which in my opinion, requires thinking on your feet and quick reflexes. None of which is required to do the testing of the lens.
Someone might perhaps say that Puts' tests seem to have parametres that favour rangefinder lenses in general (imagine on the other hand a test that awards maximum points to the AF capability of a lens; obviously rf lenses would come last) but I think there is nothing Leica specific about them. Again an analogy: I was discussing with a clinical psychologist friend of mine who administers IQ tests about the kind of thing that these test measure. His response, wisely, was that they measure your ability to succeed in IQ tests. Similarly for Puts' tests: what they measure is the ability of a lens to perform highly in his tests. Whether this is relevant to real life situations is no doubt a long discussion. But think about it: if the lens underperforms in ideal conditions (flares, distorts and is downright 'comatose' etc.etc.) what will happen in real life situations???
I believe that most of the animosity against Puts derives from two peculiar aspects of his writing: first, and less importantly, for his stylistic flourishes that could be interpreted as pomposity; second, and much more importantly, for his perceived allegiance to Leica and his insistence that their optics are superior than other on offer.
The first of the two is more cultural than anything else. If one can't read Puts because of the language then by all means one shouldn't. The latter though is a serious accusation as it implies sleight of hand and even bribing for setting up the test in favour of Leica lenses. But Puts' latest glowing reviews of the Zeiss lenses (the very reversal of fortunes between the Summicron 35 Asph. and Biogon 35 when used in the M8 being a case in point) show, I believe, some independence of opinion. Which is more than one could hope for from any human being, fallible creatures that we all are.
All the very best and a very, very happy rangefinder New Year (it is four hours away from where I am now) 🙂
