M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Erwin Puts tests Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses on the Leica M8
- Thread starter JSpicer
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 58
- Views: Views 19K
Toby
On the alert
Permit me if I may to quote a small passage from one of Erwin's recent "scientific tests".
To eliminate as many variables as possible, I used studio light, a tripod and the Apo-Summicron 2/75 at medium apertures. The Canon had the very good 24-105 at focal length 75 and also at medium apertures. In this comparison the Canon cannot capitalize on its larger sensor area as I wanted to get the same pixel area.
In my book this test has 3 flaws one of them fundamental. The first is that Erwin is comparing a prime with a zoom and a zoom with a 4x range at that. That's because Erwin owned this lens, he's not gone to the trouble of borrowing a 85/1.2 or 100/2 from canon. The second is that if the M8 is using 75mm then surely the 5d should be using a 100m - the equivalent focal length on a full frame sensor. Third and most fundamental he crops the Eos 5d's sensor - by this logic you'd compare a 4x5 with a nikon by taking a 24x36 of the large format negative.
To my mind to state that this test is worthwhile, scientific or unbiased is misguided or perverse.
To eliminate as many variables as possible, I used studio light, a tripod and the Apo-Summicron 2/75 at medium apertures. The Canon had the very good 24-105 at focal length 75 and also at medium apertures. In this comparison the Canon cannot capitalize on its larger sensor area as I wanted to get the same pixel area.
In my book this test has 3 flaws one of them fundamental. The first is that Erwin is comparing a prime with a zoom and a zoom with a 4x range at that. That's because Erwin owned this lens, he's not gone to the trouble of borrowing a 85/1.2 or 100/2 from canon. The second is that if the M8 is using 75mm then surely the 5d should be using a 100m - the equivalent focal length on a full frame sensor. Third and most fundamental he crops the Eos 5d's sensor - by this logic you'd compare a 4x5 with a nikon by taking a 24x36 of the large format negative.
To my mind to state that this test is worthwhile, scientific or unbiased is misguided or perverse.
Xmas
Veteran
JSpicer said:
You can test lenses on
- a MTF machine
- ariel image with a microscope
- microfilm and actuance
- Kchrome 25
- ground glass & loupe
testing on a M8 or RD1 is a good test of the cam sensor optics, and software, but what else does it say about the lens? Is it not like using a generic 400 asa colour neg and mini lab postcards, or even a web page sceen?
Noel
Oh Two
Established
Putting off Puts
Putting off Puts
I've kept up with Puts for a long time. Mostly I think he's more into the beauty of trees than forests.
In the article at hand he claims the M8 is better than film then tries to explain away flair and vigenette on a lenses not designed for a 1.3 multiplication factor, and which by rights and logic should perform better than worse. He then gives lip service to the failings of the micro lenses on the M8's sensor.
I think Puts may confidently count his fingers and come up with the same number each time (a good technician), but his memory is short on what he says. Therefore, his logic (even from sentence to sentence) leaves one scratching one's head, and that's why he's so difficult to understand. I don't think his stream of consciousness approach to technical review really works out.
As for his presentation, it's minimalistic yet he expects profound interpretations from his readers.
I would surely NEVER choose a lens based on his evaluations as they are too limited and his choice of tests are too biased by subjectivity.
Putting off Puts
I've kept up with Puts for a long time. Mostly I think he's more into the beauty of trees than forests.
In the article at hand he claims the M8 is better than film then tries to explain away flair and vigenette on a lenses not designed for a 1.3 multiplication factor, and which by rights and logic should perform better than worse. He then gives lip service to the failings of the micro lenses on the M8's sensor.
I think Puts may confidently count his fingers and come up with the same number each time (a good technician), but his memory is short on what he says. Therefore, his logic (even from sentence to sentence) leaves one scratching one's head, and that's why he's so difficult to understand. I don't think his stream of consciousness approach to technical review really works out.
As for his presentation, it's minimalistic yet he expects profound interpretations from his readers.
I would surely NEVER choose a lens based on his evaluations as they are too limited and his choice of tests are too biased by subjectivity.
CJP6008
Established
Hmm - a Puts bashing fest as usual. A few points to bear in mind:
1. he is Dutch as previously noted - how many of us could write such complex reviews in Dutch?
2. For all the folks who criticise him, they still seem to read him, odd that. As Larry Flint said - "If you don't like my magazine don't buy it."
3. Mr Puts is not a journalist or indeed camera designed/expert by trade. The site he puts up is a hobby. If that side of photography interests him, great. It's a broad church. He seems to know a lot more than many journalists writing for photo mage today (some of whom seem only to have a vaguest understanding of what a rangefinder is.) So go easy on him if what he writes is not as tightly argued as it could be - it's a hobby!
4. As regards his tests, I am sure there as never been an experiment conducted that was above criticism. At least he is doing some tests rather than just publishing the MTF graphs suppleid by the manufacturer.
5. Yes he may prefer Leica - but as he has often pointed out (esp in the Zeiss lens lests) they are just differently balanced designs, all excellent but giving a different look - you pays your money you takes your choice. You know he is a Leica fan, bear it in mind when reading - just as newspapers have differing political leanings and we take those into account.
Finally - there are some good reviews in BJP of the camera and Lica and Ziess lenses on it. For a different view.
C
1. he is Dutch as previously noted - how many of us could write such complex reviews in Dutch?
2. For all the folks who criticise him, they still seem to read him, odd that. As Larry Flint said - "If you don't like my magazine don't buy it."
3. Mr Puts is not a journalist or indeed camera designed/expert by trade. The site he puts up is a hobby. If that side of photography interests him, great. It's a broad church. He seems to know a lot more than many journalists writing for photo mage today (some of whom seem only to have a vaguest understanding of what a rangefinder is.) So go easy on him if what he writes is not as tightly argued as it could be - it's a hobby!
4. As regards his tests, I am sure there as never been an experiment conducted that was above criticism. At least he is doing some tests rather than just publishing the MTF graphs suppleid by the manufacturer.
5. Yes he may prefer Leica - but as he has often pointed out (esp in the Zeiss lens lests) they are just differently balanced designs, all excellent but giving a different look - you pays your money you takes your choice. You know he is a Leica fan, bear it in mind when reading - just as newspapers have differing political leanings and we take those into account.
Finally - there are some good reviews in BJP of the camera and Lica and Ziess lenses on it. For a different view.
C
Bryan L
Newbie
Hear hear!
Bryan
Bryan
lshofstra
Established
I'm always a bit surprised at the emotions the name Puts seems to engender (is that the right word? I'm Dutch too..) Anyway, and just for the record, he does in fact write in a Dutch magazine called "Camera Magazine". I like to read his stuff, even though it leans heavily towards sharpness as en equivalent of quality. And to continue (perhaps a bit off-thread): Imagery is obviously more complex than that. Where I like the sharpness of modern lenses (for me usually CV), I love the imagery of Zeiss Super Ikonta and Rollei TLR (tessar and planar lenses respectively). Perhaps simply because this type of image was imbedded in my brain when I was young and these older camera's are just about the same age as I am. To get back to Puts: having tried to make clear that what he writes is by no means gospel to me I'd still say: keep it up Erwin...
Turtle
Veteran
There is a huge difference between being rude about ther person and critical of his reviews. I agree with what X-Ray has said so far in that EP's reports are not very good on the whole. I have seen more insightful, objective and generally useful reviews from other writers so clearly it can be done! I also agree that he appears to have been forced to change his tune of late (Zeiss vs Leica) but still leaves the reader somewhat in the dark as to what the real world differences are even at the end of the article. I have read all the Leica and many of the Canon lens tests on his site and at the end of it all you still end up left with his 'the Leica produces more brilliant photographs...' and as many questions as you started with. It is all about the final print and in very few cases does he give you any idea of how this end state is to be affected by lens choice. That said, we should remember that we can all read his reviews for free and I am grateful for that. Although his reviews have flaws there is useful information that can be gained allowing for sound decisions to be made when considered in conjunction with other writings.
HAnkg
Well-known
He writes for magazines and is published by Leica. He also claims the highest standards of accuracy for his writing/opinions. So it's no surprise that he is judged by a different standard then an amateur photographer relating his opinion/experience with a lens.CJP6008 said:
The fact that some of his writing borders on incoherence is not as a result of difficulty with the English language but of methods that are often contradictory and incoherent. This seems especially the case when he writes about digital. His examples often leave you scratching your head (or perhaps laughing hysterically) after all the prose about high technical standards and technique. The stuff that is so glaringly poorly done and wrong headed makes you wonder about the accuracy of those of his lens reviews which appear more credible.
I would contrast this to Sean Reid's reviews which while not technical lab reviews using optical measuring instruments are very thorough real world tests and contain many useful and informative examples, illustrating in a rational and logical way the text.
x-ray
Veteran
I would agree the final result is what's important. Certainly the MTF curves, etc. are part of it but there are so many other factors including personal taste, film selection and personal technique that helps form our opinion of what our ideal lens is. Each of us have our own set of ideals.
I just took a moment to read a Putts review and found in this case, the 35 summicron vs the asph summicron and summilux, that his comparisons were done at 30x. How many of us make 30x prints? Not me as a rule. He stated that the differences were there at 30x. What does this tell you about lens quality when you have to enlarge the neg 30x to see the differences?
I just took a moment to read a Putts review and found in this case, the 35 summicron vs the asph summicron and summilux, that his comparisons were done at 30x. How many of us make 30x prints? Not me as a rule. He stated that the differences were there at 30x. What does this tell you about lens quality when you have to enlarge the neg 30x to see the differences?
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
All that Puts does is provide elaborate interpretations of MTF data, the same information that optics manufacturers & engineers use in designing lenses. What really matters is the end result in the photos. So, I agree with those who say that we would be much better off if Mr. Puts would stop offering this free service with its awkward writing. Less information is far better than a comprehensive technical analysis of lens tests. I wish that he'd just go away so that we could focus on the vast array of other lens reviewers who provide high level analysis of lens performance with the nuances of actual photos. Including in your thinking the kind of useless information that Mr. Puts provides is just a complete waste of time.
Anyone who is trying to make a decision about a lens purchase would be far better served to buy all of the available lenses at that focal length & shoot slides with all of the different lenses. Then, use multiple projectors to compare the results of large screen projections so that the subtle variations of the results can be compared in terms of resolution, tonality, shading, color saturation, bokeh, etc. Finally, you will be able to make a sane decision. Once having selected the best lens for you, sell off the other 17 lenses you have purchased. No fuss, no muss, job done.
Anyone who is trying to make a decision about a lens purchase would be far better served to buy all of the available lenses at that focal length & shoot slides with all of the different lenses. Then, use multiple projectors to compare the results of large screen projections so that the subtle variations of the results can be compared in terms of resolution, tonality, shading, color saturation, bokeh, etc. Finally, you will be able to make a sane decision. Once having selected the best lens for you, sell off the other 17 lenses you have purchased. No fuss, no muss, job done.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
The 30x figure is the first time I've seen a suggestion of a standard being used. Is 30x the comparison standard or is it 120x, 60x, 10x or what. Does it wary between lenses or does he run the magnification up untill he sees a difference. What are the standards?
Huck's right, just throw out the Putts evaluations and go on with life. Bad lenses are a thing of the past. Todays computer designs are superb with only slight differences that may not show untill you reach the 40x60 inch print stage. I recently purchased a 50 1.5 Nokton and a 50 Planar. I had the tadded 50 summicron for years and before that the ridgid and v2 summicron. I now shoot with a 50 Planar and asph Summilux 50's. I'm in the process of printing for a museum show making prints up to 16x20. My conclusion about all of the above lenses is there is virtually no differences. Each are excellent performers with the conditions that each shot was made under being the boggest factor in the look of the image. My skill as a photographer and the environmental conditions of the shot plus the film and processing of the film play a bigger part in the final look of the image than any particular characteristic of these lenses. If I didn't know what lenses I was shooting at a given time in my career I would'nt know these images were shot with different lenses. Let me also throw in a few other 50's. Over time I've shot with Nikkor's both RF and slr, pentax, canon FD and EF plus Zeiss slrand Minolta. There are only two lenses over 40+ years that i can say were taken with inferior glass. The 20 FD Canon and the 18 super takumar absolutely stunk!
I know many of you won't believe me but I've been going through roughly 15,000 negs and will in the end have 70 museum quality prints. I honestly could not tell one neg or print from another from different lens makers with the exception of those two lenses. The only real variable that I've noticed as a general rule is variations in color, which I rarely shoot, and contrast.
Huck's right, just throw out the Putts evaluations and go on with life. Bad lenses are a thing of the past. Todays computer designs are superb with only slight differences that may not show untill you reach the 40x60 inch print stage. I recently purchased a 50 1.5 Nokton and a 50 Planar. I had the tadded 50 summicron for years and before that the ridgid and v2 summicron. I now shoot with a 50 Planar and asph Summilux 50's. I'm in the process of printing for a museum show making prints up to 16x20. My conclusion about all of the above lenses is there is virtually no differences. Each are excellent performers with the conditions that each shot was made under being the boggest factor in the look of the image. My skill as a photographer and the environmental conditions of the shot plus the film and processing of the film play a bigger part in the final look of the image than any particular characteristic of these lenses. If I didn't know what lenses I was shooting at a given time in my career I would'nt know these images were shot with different lenses. Let me also throw in a few other 50's. Over time I've shot with Nikkor's both RF and slr, pentax, canon FD and EF plus Zeiss slrand Minolta. There are only two lenses over 40+ years that i can say were taken with inferior glass. The 20 FD Canon and the 18 super takumar absolutely stunk!
I know many of you won't believe me but I've been going through roughly 15,000 negs and will in the end have 70 museum quality prints. I honestly could not tell one neg or print from another from different lens makers with the exception of those two lenses. The only real variable that I've noticed as a general rule is variations in color, which I rarely shoot, and contrast.
kevin m
Veteran
Puts is wildly un-scientific in his methodology, and his writing seems designed to obscure rather than to illuminate his subject. (The American saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****" comes to mind.)
One laughable quote that comes to mind regarding the Hexar RF and its "backfocus" issues:
What makes it funny is that interchangeability is the principle upon which the entire movie camera industry is based. All cameras from all manufacturers share the same "PL" mount, as do the lenses. They're all based on the 52mm flange focal distance. As long as your camera and lens are in spec, you can mount a Zeiss lens on an Arriflex body, or an Angenieux lens on an Aaton body, etc. 'til the cows come home. FWIW, there's an entire cottage industry in So Cal that converts still camera lenses to the PL mount, too, so it's common to see Nikon and Canon lenses on movie sets, as well. Maybe Erwin should give them a call and tell them to knock it off?
Leica cameras and lenses aren't made from magical material, they're assembled from glass and metal and plastic, and built within a range of tolerances just like every other lens manufactured on this planet, so if your camera is an M mount, and it's within spec, an M mount lens will work. But you don't sell many 'magic' lenses with logic like that, I suppose.
One laughable quote that comes to mind regarding the Hexar RF and its "backfocus" issues:
What makes it funny is that interchangeability is the principle upon which the entire movie camera industry is based. All cameras from all manufacturers share the same "PL" mount, as do the lenses. They're all based on the 52mm flange focal distance. As long as your camera and lens are in spec, you can mount a Zeiss lens on an Arriflex body, or an Angenieux lens on an Aaton body, etc. 'til the cows come home. FWIW, there's an entire cottage industry in So Cal that converts still camera lenses to the PL mount, too, so it's common to see Nikon and Canon lenses on movie sets, as well. Maybe Erwin should give them a call and tell them to knock it off?
Leica cameras and lenses aren't made from magical material, they're assembled from glass and metal and plastic, and built within a range of tolerances just like every other lens manufactured on this planet, so if your camera is an M mount, and it's within spec, an M mount lens will work. But you don't sell many 'magic' lenses with logic like that, I suppose.
x-ray
Veteran
Erwin's only reconfirming what many leica owners want to hear from a supposed expert, I own the best.
icebear
Veteran
Just don't waste your time if you feel so...
Just don't waste your time if you feel so...
Just don't waste your time if you feel so...
Huck Finn said:I wish that he'd just go away so that we could focus on the vast array of other lens reviewers who provide high level analysis of lens performance with the nuances of actual photos. Including in your thinking the kind of useless information that Mr. Puts provides is just a complete waste of time.
Huck,
what's the problem ? If you don't like EP's writing, just don't read it ! But to wish that "he'd just go away" sorry that's a bit strange.
I guess there are hundreds of re-sources for every kind of information nowadays, just take your pick, your personal favorite. I read EP's articles and for me he just shows what lenses are theoretical capable of i.e. under lab conditions. For a test there is no other way to come to a reproduceable result. If I would be taking pictures of test charts is another matter. I go out to shoot and I do not carry a tripod - obviously a NO NO to EP. Do I care? - of course not. He has just his personal way of writing and testing, obviously not everyone's taste. No one has to like it- especially as no one has paid for it.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Icebear, I wrote that post with my tongue planted firmly in cheek. I'm glad you noticed how silly it sounded. Does anyone think that I'm advocating buying & testing 18 lenses to get the one you want?
I completely agree with you. Erwin provides a certain kind of information. If anyone finds it helpful, that's great. For anyone who doesn't, ignore it. He's not the last word on lens quality, so anyone is free to take it for what it's worth.
I'm glad you noticed how silly it sounded. Does anyone think that I'm advocating buying & testing 18 lenses to get the one you want? I completely agree with you. Erwin provides a certain kind of information. If anyone finds it helpful, that's great. For anyone who doesn't, ignore it. He's not the last word on lens quality, so anyone is free to take it for what it's worth.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You can't be more on-target. I do my best to ignore his "musings" and try to find the "meat" (whenever there's any). What I find even more amusing is people always begging to ignore him if you don't like what he's saying...which is pretty much on not ignoring what they don't like about what they are saying about what he's saying. I'm just saying.kevin m said:
Olsen
Well-known
Can't remember that I have read so much bull in one thread as on this one.
Take it in folks; a renowned photographical expert has found several of the Carl Zeiss lenses better than the Leica counterparts. It should not come as a supprise. Carl Zeiss even said so, quite frankly, when introducing the ZM lense line.
That a modern Biogon overgoes any Leica equaliant of today does not suprise me a minute. The Biogons were better even 50 years ago. Zeiss has impoved a lot since then, while Leica has gone 'aspherical'. Not always the best way to perfection.
(The irony of it is that the 35 mm 2,0 Asph is one of the few Leica lenses I have...)
Take it in folks; a renowned photographical expert has found several of the Carl Zeiss lenses better than the Leica counterparts. It should not come as a supprise. Carl Zeiss even said so, quite frankly, when introducing the ZM lense line.
That a modern Biogon overgoes any Leica equaliant of today does not suprise me a minute. The Biogons were better even 50 years ago. Zeiss has impoved a lot since then, while Leica has gone 'aspherical'. Not always the best way to perfection.
(The irony of it is that the 35 mm 2,0 Asph is one of the few Leica lenses I have...)
MikeL
Go Fish
I'm not an artist or photographer, but I do know what I like to see. The major limitation of certain reviews is that I can't see what they are talking about. This is likely due to my ignorance of terms, lack of sophistication, etc. However, when I look at something like a noctilux photo I go, "Damm, that's cool" Then I look at another noctilux photo and go, "Whoa, dude that's hurtin." Reading someone's words doesn't help me much, other than provide inspiration to find some photos produced and see if it would work for what I like to do or need to do. There's that saying about a thousand words or something. That's why I like Sean's reviews, you get to see what he's talking about.