Erwin Puts tests Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses on the Leica M8

Guys

My big problem is Mike's post (the seventh) as I surf eating things and my keyboard and wind pipe tends to suffer when something it too too risible for words.

Noel
 
The other thing is that some of the manufacturers publish their own MTF charts (or claim lines per mm etc.) and if they all used the same 'standards' then this would be an objective difference - if we could understand the real difference.

Received wisdom is that when the US journos compared Zeiss and Nikon lenses, from early fiftys, the Zeiss lenses were better by a small margin, but everyone bought Nikon as there was a larger $ difference, the construction quality was 'comparable', the Zeiss had a better finish, Nikon eat Zeiss lunch.

People have compared the 2000 1.4 Nikon with the Leitz asph 1.4, & it seems that Nikon seem to be almost throwing in a body for free, even if they dont claim an aspheric?

Wish I could afford either.

Noel
 
I have both the S3-2000 with the new 1.4 and the asph Summilux 50. There is virtually no difference in performance between the two. And yes, the S3 body is basically free when you purchase the lens. I find it amazing that this lens, nikkor, is a design from the 60's or 50's and still performs up with the state of the art asph summilux. Modern coating made the difference. I've seen many people on various forums outting down nikkor and other Japanese glass but the facts are they perform as well as the best German glass. I shoot a variety of Japanese and German lenses and have for forty plus years. Even as critical of my work as I am I can not see a characteristic difference in Nikkor, Zeiss and Leica glass with B&W. Too may factors come into play to say one is better than the other. Hwever i do have my favorite lenses. I've always lovce my 24 and 105 Nikkors in slr mount. They are absolutely spectacular. My point being, and I've said this before, not every maker makes every focal length/ model of lens the best. Every maker including Zeiss, leica, Canon and Nikkor have made their gems and their dogs. The playing field has been leveled in recent years. There are no longer secrets in lens design. I read recently that there are companies that do only lens design for Nikon and other makers. Many of the companies now out source design and manufacturing of their optics. A good example is Zeiss and Nikon. Nikon doesn't design all of their lenses much make all of them. I think Zeiss designs them but doesn't build most of the ZM and ZF lenses. This is nothing new for even Leica. Leica had a deal going with Minolta a few years back and even rebranded some of the lenses. Leica for all the years I've shot them has had a few Schneider lenses like the PA Curtagon and Super Angulon. The advantage here is new ideas from avariety of different people rather than a totally in house design group. The state of the art grinding and machining equipment costs can be spread over a broader market reducing the price and maintaining the highest standards in design. Since the 80's Zeiss has been making lenses in Japan and some in Germany. My experience has been nothing but good with the Japanese made lenses. Leica even split the production anddesign between Germany and Canada. Canada did the high tech designs where as Germany did the more routine lenses.
 
As to objectivity in scientific studies, who just goes out and does basic research anymore? No one is 100% pure-as-the-driven-snow. Most people are as pure-as-the-driven-ON-snow, which aint so pure. From grants to the pressure to publish to taking money to get the answer someone wants, everyone has an agenda.

The rise of the internet and the ability of Excel to spit our coorelation data has made it so anyone can run some numbers, post them, or press release them.

All you can do is look at the data, try to recreate it when possible, and draw your own conclusions.

I thoughts Puts had a big break-up with Leica a few years ago?

Mark
 
x-ray said:
I I've always lovce my 24 and 105 Nikkors in slr mount. They are absolutely spectacular. My point being, and I've said this before, not every maker makes every focal length/ model of lens the best. Every maker including Zeiss, leica, Canon and Nikkor have made their gems and their dogs.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I too feel my Nikkor 24/2.8 AI and 105/2.5 AIS SLR lenses are real gems.

willie
 
OOPS! missed the 180 2.8 ED. All three are spectacular. In canon my 35 1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 F2 and 200 F1.8 are tops and let's throw in the 24 F1.4 as excellent and the only game in town if you want a 24 1.4.

For the really bad let's talk about the FD 20mm Canon and 18mm Takumar. Really bad!
 
The French magazine Chasseur d'images has an extensive review in its last issue (No. 290 - January-February 2007) about Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses on the M8. All the lenses tested get the maximum rating (5 stars) and almost all resolution graphs stick to the maximum level, even wide open. Zeiss lenses exhibit slightly more CA and vignetting, but this is due to the fact that Leica lenses are software corrected on the M8, thanks to the 6 bits coding.

Cheers,

Abbazz
 
anselwannab said:
As to objectivity in scientific studies, who just goes out and does basic research anymore? No one is 100% pure-as-the-driven-snow. Most people are as pure-as-the-driven-ON-snow, which aint so pure. From grants to the pressure to publish to taking money to get the answer someone wants, everyone has an agenda.

The rise of the internet and the ability of Excel to spit our coorelation data has made it so anyone can run some numbers, post them, or press release them.

All you can do is look at the data, try to recreate it when possible, and draw your own conclusions.

Mark
Click to expand...

Mark, what field are you in? I have to disagree with you here. While grants and publication pressure might influence what questions are asked, I'm less cynical that objectivity in the practice of science is missing. Yes, we are aware of the b.s.ers in our fields, but peer review and repeatability have been pretty effective at sieving out the crap and advancing our understanding. The community is pretty good at knowing when someone is b.s.ing in my opinion. Sorry for the tangent.

I think Erwin Puts is good at measuring certain aspects of a lens optical performance. He fails like scientists do, however, in communicating his observations in a manner that would be informative for many of us. It would be nice if he had examples (other than test charts) for many of this statements about lens performance so that people could judge whether it would matter for them or not. I'm still trying to grasp his descriptions of micro-contrast, etc. Seeing it would help me.
 
MikeL said:
I think Erwin Puts is good at measuring certain aspects of a lens optical performance. He fails like scientists do, however, in communicating his observations in a manner that would be informative for many of us. It would be nice if he had examples (other than test charts) for many of this statements about lens performance so that people could judge whether it would matter for them or not.
Click to expand...

If Erwins reviews were his masters thesis I'd send him back to high school. He writes the negatives of the competition and throws in a couple of plusses and then makes a broad statement like it's apparent the XYZ leica lens is better than the ABC CV lens or the images from XYZ leica lens are more brilliant than the ABC CV lens and that all he will say. He's good at saying the differences are obvious and then down the paragraph saying the differences aren't that great and saying the lens is equal to the previous generation of leica lens.

I don't think Erwin can do effective examples. I't "obvious" from his images that he posts that he has no technical skill in making photographs. His images are not well executed and really show very little and his scans are terrible.
 
Gentlmen,
The problem that few people acknowledge is that Erwin is the only person to have completed such an exhaustive test of all Leica lenses so will always be the baseline for comparison. Whether he is a good photographer or not has little reason to criticise the guy. He is Dutch, this may account for his unusual grammar. Perhaps someone here will try a similar exercise to debunk his theories, I somehow doubt it!

normclarke
 
anselwannab said:
As to objectivity in scientific studies, who just goes out and does basic research anymore? No one is 100% pure-as-the-driven-snow. Most people are as pure-as-the-driven-ON-snow, which aint so pure. From grants to the pressure to publish to taking money to get the answer someone wants, everyone has an agenda.

Mark
Click to expand...

I disagree.

There is a fundamental difference between being pressured by an academic career that demands publications or a commercial entitiy that pays directly or indirectly to publish data.

Especially on the web, where there is no filter of peer review or an editorial board for your own website.

If RFF would sanction "official" reviews of products and have an expert comittee that reviews the data and publication would that not be better than VC donating $5000 worth of equipment so I can compare VC lenses to Jupiters and putting it up on the web?
Again, I am not trying to diminish EP's efforts. But it is not what we really need or want.

I would really like to leave EP behind and discuss what an evaluation would look like that many of us would appreciate.

Cheers,
Andreas
 
Andreas,

You raise an excellent point. Professional journalists have editors who should review and evaluate their work. Professional journalists may also benefit from informal peer review. Not all editors are competent and poor reviews are more common then they should be in journalism. The academic peer-review system is known to be far from perfect

Still, I am not aware of an independent WWW photography equipment reviewer whose work is subject to any type of review before publication.

The initial Sean Reid M8 review is a prime of example of how editorial/peer review could have been useful. A peer or editor might have asked Mr. Reid to perform an IR sensitivity test.


Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape actually did such a test in his M8 review (which could be viewed for free). He published a plot of the M8's 3D color space and wrote,

"It clearly is almost as large as ProPhoto RGB... but what has caught my eye are the three spikes, one in the greens and the other two in the mauves and reds. The extreme spike in the very deep reds indicates to me that the M8 has a very weak to nonexistent infra-red blocking filter."

To his credit, Mr. Reichman, however, admitted his initial M8 review was flawed as well when he wrote,

"On a personal level this has reflected badly on me ... I did mention in my review that the camera suffered from poor low light auto white balance, and had excessive infrared sensitivity, my review did not mention the green blob / banding and purple response issues... I discovered these during my initial testing and put them in my review. I then sent my draft review to Leica, ... for their comments. The company subsequently requested that I hold off mentioning these latter items because they were looking into them and hoped to have a response in short order. I acquiesced to this request, not wanting to delay my review, and expecting that I would be able to publish a follow-up quickly that not only mentioned these problems but also their potential solution. This did not happen. "

I very much respect Mr. Reichman's candor. At the same time, I wonder if an experienced editor could have convinced Mr. Reichman to come to a different decision?



RFF is in a unique position to contribute useful reviews of new RF equiptment. Unlike magazines (who depend on manufacturer advertising revenue) and manufacturer supported WWW reviewers (who are at the mercy of a vendor to supply pre-shipment hardware and software), RFF only has to answer to their readership.


Car & Driver has an interesting review system. For new car reviews they will publish brief opinions of several staff members as well as a formal review article. There is also a sidebar for a dissenting opinion(s).

It is unlikely RFF reviewers would receive gear to test well in advance of a product's release. I wonder how many RF photographers would prefer accuracy and completeness to speed? With a peer-reviewed system and a culture where responsible dissent is included, independent RFF reviews could become some of the most credible in print or electronic media.


willie
 
normclarke said:
Gentlmen,
The problem that few people acknowledge is that Erwin is the only person to have completed such an exhaustive test of all Leica lenses so will always be the baseline for comparison. Whether he is a good photographer or not has little reason to criticise the guy. He is Dutch, this may account for his unusual grammar. Perhaps someone here will try a similar exercise to debunk his theories, I somehow doubt it!

normclarke
Click to expand...

My issue is that he glosses over the down side of Leica glass. I've shot enough leica and other makes of lenses for enough years under enough conditions to know he's not telling the total story. His tune is beginning to change but overall he's been a little shy about putting the negative points of leica glass down for everyone to see and always been ready to spell out the negatives of other makers of glass like CV. He's bad about defining the actual difference in one lens vs another. When it's to leicas advantage he knows exactly how to word his review.

Not being a competent photographer certainly does have something to do with an honest rounded evaluation. I don't think he knows what a technically good photo is much be able to execute one. If you're writing about the photographic properties of a lens you better be able to make an image to show you know what you're talking about. I'm not talking creativity but technical skill and the ability toe execute a fine quality image. On a scale of 1-10 his skill level is about a 3.

Erwins recent reviews of Leica, Zeiss and Canon have certainly surprised me but he still glosses over too many facts. The reports read as though he lost three pages of a five page report.
 
I have learned a lot from Mr. Puts, but the general trajectory of his reasoning always infuratingly leads to the same conclusions: Each Leica lens is better than the previous, and each is but another step on the ladder of Leica's ongoing perfection. There is very little mention of Zeiss' or anyone else's concurrent developments.

I am more interested in Leica's zig zags and interesting mistakes. Leica Historical Society, for example, has published some articles on Leica's varying design parameters over the years, such as varying the correction of their 1950s 35mm designs from perfect flat field correction to compensating for some other aberration in the next batch a couple of years later.
 
summaron and x-ray have hit the nail on the head for me. Inevitably, even when praising a non-Leica lens, Mr. Puts finds a way to find fault with it compared with the Leica lens it's being compared to, even if his objective testing methods indicate the non-Leica lens outperforms the Leica lens. And these statements seem to always come out of the blue, unsupported by anything stated before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom