Puts and the new Summarit-M lenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
J J Kapsberger said:
Yes, I was thinking about you as I posted this. I was wondering which thread I should post it in. I decided to post it here as the MF thread has got out of hand...
Click to expand...

...and is now closed!

I have said it before. Leica has no magic, but they make great lenses in the main. They can be compared against other brands rather than assume an unassailable position. As for sparkle and presence.... ALL of my kit can do that if I am good printer, speaking of mono of course. Some require a different printing style, sure but I can get a great glow out of cheapo zoom so I suspect I can get that out of a CV prime. Sparkle is harder but I find it more a product of film and dev than lens, tho a good lens helps a lot if contrast is inherent.

I find it interesting that sparkle is now being introduced as a 'real term', an important criteria upon which imaging decisions depend, where sharpness was poo-pood in another thread...Where tonality from bigger negs and perceived detail was equally poo-pood...that sparkle is now something that is important to an image. Besides, unless I am missing something, tonality (assuming we mean smooth tonal transitions and a grey scale richness so to spk) is largely a function of film grain, neg size and the amount of enlargement (and viewing distance, rather than the lens). If you want tonality above all things Magus, you need LF 😀.

With my Leica Summilux ASPH, I dont see any sparkle that I cannot get on ANY of my other primes through applying good technique.

As someone else said, if these new Summarits sacrifice 2% performance for a 50% price reduction, it may be very welcome. So, if they fail to be received by Leica users as possessing the magical Leica glow/sparkle (something I perversely find arrives in the darkroom with some of my Canon, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Kodak lenses when I apply myself properly and rarely when I dont) we will know that the Leica magic exists in that 2% performance and 50% costs and will be able to attribute an actual cost for it. If it does still exist in these cheapo summarits we will know that they do indeed have fairly dust the formula for which has been tightly guarded all these years (just like the Crabbie-Pattie formula...damn that Plankton 😀). If it still arrives despite poorer MTFs (on paper measurements) with the Summarits compared to faster Crons, we will know that Leica magic is again a special additive and independent of all other optical measurements devised so far.

If I posted some shots off my Canon 135 F2 and told everyone it was shot on a Leica 135 f3.4 I am sure I would have Leicaphiles waxing lyrical about the quality of Leica glass. If I posted shots off my Canon 28-135 IS (less sharp and contrasty) and claimed it was a vintage leica I am sure I would get the same guff about its glow rendering higher resultion of modern lenses vulgar and undesirable.

Leica make lenses. They are not magicians. Or even Pixie magicians. Is the sort of magic we talk about only available in optics (despite any real explanation for what it is (which keeps changing from person to person in any case)? I mean could a car have this same magic or a plane. Did the Me109 have it when it proved superior to many allied fighters. when bettered by later allied marks did the me109 lose it magic or the Allied planes find their own magic? I just thought there were technical innovations myself, much like with lenses. CV lenses today are very good indeed and compare to some Leica lenses of old in resolution/contrast terms, bettering some. So if they are not worthy of consideration, why? how can one hold that old Leica glass is wonderful (even when it lacks resolution or contrast) and that modern ones are too (when they have oodles of both), yet CVB lenses are dull whe often somnewhere between old and new leica glass? I am sure you see my logic here.
 
Last edited:
Turtle said:
...and is now closed!

I have said it before. Leica has no magic, but they make great lenses in the main. They can be compared against other brands rather than assume an unassailable position. As for sparkle and presence.... ALL of my kit can do that if I am good printer, speaking of mono of course. Some require a different printing style, sure but I can get a great glow out of cheapo zoom so I suspect I can get that out of a CV prime. Sparkle is harder but I find it more a product of film and dev than lens, tho a good lens helps a lot if contrast is inherent.

I find it interesting that sparkle is now being introduced as a 'real term', an important criteria upon which imaging decisions depend, where sharpness was poo-pood in another thread...Where tonality from bigger negs and perceived detail was equally poo-pood...that sparkle is now something that is important to an image. Besides, unless I am missing something, tonality (assuming we mean smooth tonal transitions and a grey scale richness so to spk) is largely a function of film grain, neg size and the amount of enlargement (and viewing distance, rather than the lens). If you want tonality above all things Magus, you need LF 😀.

With my Leica Summilux ASPH, I dont see any sparkle that I cannot get on ANY of my other primes through applying good technique.

As someone else said, if these new Summarits sacrifice 2% performance for a 50% price reduction, it may be very welcome. So, if they fail to be received by Leica users as possessing the magical Leica glow/sparkle (something I perversely find arrives in the darkroom with some of my Canon, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Kodak lenses when I apply myself properly and rarely when I dont) we will know that the Leica magic exists in that 2% performance and 50% costs and will be able to attribute an actual cost for it. If it does still exist in these cheapo summarits we will know that they do indeed have fairly dust the formula for which has been tightly guarded all these years (just like the Crabbie-Pattie formula...damn that Plankton 😀). If it still arrives despite poorer MTFs (on paper measurements) with the Summarits compared to faster Crons, we will know that Leica magic is again a special additive and independent of all other optical measurements devised so far.

If I posted some shots off my Canon 135 F2 and told everyone it was shot on a Leica 135 f3.4 I am sure I would have Leicaphiles waxing lyrical about the quality of Leica glass. If I posted shots off my Canon 28-135 IS (less sharp and contrasty) and claimed it was a vintage leica I am sure I would get the same guff about its glow rendering higher resultion of modern lenses vulgar and undesirable.

Leica make lenses. They are not magicians. Or even Pixie magicians. Is the sort of magic we talk about only available in optics (despite any real explanation for what it is (which keeps changing from person to person in any case)? I mean could a car have this same magic or a plane. Did the Me109 have it when it proved superior to many allied fighters. when bettered by later allied marks did the me109 lose it magic or the Allied planes find their own magic? I just thought there were technical innovations myself, much like with lenses. CV lenses today are very good indeed and compare to some Leica lenses of old in resolution/contrast terms, bettering some. So if they are not worthy of consideration, why? how can one hold that old Leica glass is wonderful (even when it lacks resolution or contrast) and that modern ones are too (when they have oodles of both), yet CVB lenses are dull whe often somnewhere between old and new leica glass? I am sure you see my logic here.
Click to expand...


You said it all! You're one of the few that understands. A+ for Turtle.
 
Leica make lenses. They are not magicians. Or even Pixie magicians. Is the sort of magic we talk about only available in optics (despite any real explanation for what it is (which keeps changing from person to person in any case)? I mean could a car have this same magic or a plane. Did the Me109 have it when it proved superior to many allied fighters. when bettered by later allied marks did the me109 lose it magic or the Allied planes find their own magic? I just thought there were technical innovations myself, much like with lenses. CV lenses today are very good indeed and compare to some Leica lenses of old in resolution/contrast terms, bettering some. So if they are not worthy of consideration, why? how can one hold that old Leica glass is wonderful (even when it lacks resolution or contrast) and that modern ones are too (when they have oodles of both), yet CVB lenses are dull whe often somnewhere between old and new leica glass? I am sure you see my logic here.
Click to expand...


To understand the the logic you have to use special LEICA science. This is like normal science except the conclusion is always the same - "Leica is superior". (You can't say "best" because, that would imply there was any actual competition in the first place). So this is what you do, you form your hypothesis and, becuase you know your conclusion, you can simply discard any facts that do not match with what you already know to be true, or choose tests that operate in your favour. In this vein Erwin Puts is a great optical scientist - he uses superior Leica science and not the shoddy common kind that gets taught in schools and universities. 😀 😀

To see examples of this science look at his M8 vs. Eos 5d comparison:
He puts a zoom on the canon and a prime on the M8, then comes up with a spurious reason for cropping the 5d sensor in all his comparisons (on this basis a 400d has a better sensor than a 5d due to its smaller pixels).
 
Last edited:
Magus, get over it! There's no magic in any lens and there's no bending over backward to make the image sparkle. It's not an emotional response but a totally honest evaluation based on 40 + years of professional experience.

Turtle has it nailed and is not a victim of advertising and propaganda.
 
Krosya said:
I thought Galen used MF panoramic camera. No?
Click to expand...
I've only seen mention of his using 35mm (Nikon) equipment in the backcountry (when he backpacked to a remote sites). I've always thought it was probably more for convenience and portability than any particular preference for the 35mm format as such.

Richard
 
richard_l said:
I've only seen mention of his using 35mm (Nikon) equipment in the backcountry (when he backpacked to a remote sites). I've always thought it was probably more for convenience and portability than any particular preference for the 35mm format as such.

Richard
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was convenience or not but he shure made some fine images with inferior Nikkor lenses.
 
This is an interesting debate. we are actually talking about opinions and experience here. Most of us on Rff are a bit of "gearheads" as well as shooters.
Bashing Puts is very popular, but i have a great deal of respect for his technical knowledge and enthusiasm for optics. We have known Erwin and his wife Ils for many years and ww try to get toghether at least once a year and backtalk some of you guys on LUG and RFf!. Of course, when we meet we talk cameras and lenses too and exchange opinions. I dont agree with Erwin all the times and vice versa, but I do respect what he says. In writing he cam sound a bit "professorial" as english is his third language (if not fourth) and that occasionally comes across as harsh and didactic.
Personnally I like most lenses! Todays modern manufacturing and technology has given us rangefinder users optics that were impossible to make before!. The arrival of Zeiss/konica and CV has given us alternatives that are quite mind blowing. Lenses like the 12/5,6 and 15/4,5 from CV at a price that has made it possible for us mere mortals to get them. high speed lenses like the 35/1,2 CV, the 50/1,4 Asph and the 75/2 Asph from Leica, the Zeiss line of lenses with its remarkable consistency across the board. As a Rf shooter I have never had it so good!
In manufacturing there is always a balance between what it costs to make (or sometimes what can it be sold for) and the technology that goes in to the product. If you talk to lens designers, they will tell you that it is possible to make a f0.8/50mm lens, but it would cost more than a new home! If you have the money, Leica can make you a 1600mm f4 lens (they did for one customer at a 6 figure cost).
I have been taking pictures for close to 50 years and my negative files go back about 35-40 years. Truth be told, there are very few shots among those 350 000 negatives or 10's of thousands of slides that i can blame the lens for lack of quality!
Yes, some lenses will render 3 dimensions in to two better than others and as long as you know that, it will probably do you well IF you shoot with that limitation in mind!
One of the highest reolving lenses that I ever used was a Summaron 28f5,6 LTM, but the contrast was flat as a pancake and you really had to pick film and developing matching this to get aa usable shot.
Of course it is fun to get a box with a new lens and go out and try it out, but today I think the differences between various lenses is far less than in the past. There are subltle color hues shifts, contrast might the higher or lower but most lenses will outperform the film (or the sensor) that you are using.
The new Summarit lens line from Leica is most likely going to be as good as even the top-line products from Zeiss or CV and most likely also surpass older Leica designs like the 50/2 Summicron and 90/2.8. Leica has been in this business for long, long time and they are not going jeopardize their reputation by producing sub standard products (nor can they afford to do it with CV/Zeiss nipping at their heels). I dont know if I would buy them, as I have more than enough lenses as it is, but there is always that opening of a box with a new, unknown lens in it. Will I see a difference in my pitures using it? I doubt it.
Like all of you I will peruse the MTF charts from Erwin and the results from Sean Reid, but I most likely will base my decsion on wether I like the feel of the lens and the results I get. I am grateful for experts like Erwin/Sean and others who like doing these tests (i hate doing it) but in the end I make my decision on my own.
 
ferider said:
- Some of the R lenses are made by Kyrocera.
- Aspherical surfaces in many of the M asph lenses are formed by a
moulding technique that Leica, Hoya and Schott jointly developed (not hand ground ...)
- Historically, some Leitz lenses have been made in Japan, by Minolta.

I like the Leitz lenses that I have (non of them younger than 30 years).

BUT:

Competition is good for us, the consumer; it increases
quality and decreases price; more of the consumer's money is spent on
engineering. Brand worshipping is bad since you end up spending
more money for brand/marketing than for the product you are getting.

Puts is part of Leica's marketing machine, the same organization that
sold Hermes special editions just a few years ago.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Some R lenses have been made by Kyocera and Minolta, but all M lenses are currently German made. The Canada facility no longer makes their as it was sold to Hughes. As far as I know M lenses have never been made outside theri Germany and Canadian facilities.

Gene
 
grduprey said:
As far as I know M lenses have never been made outside theri Germany and Canadian facilities.

Gene
Click to expand...

There is a version of the Leitz Elmar-C 90/4 that says "Made in Japan". Possibly the only M lens made outside of Germany and Canada (maybe the 40/2 Summicron-C as well?).
 
grduprey said:
Some R lenses have been made by Kyocera and Minolta, but all M lenses are currently German made. The Canada facility no longer makes their as it was sold to Hughes. As far as I know M lenses have never been made outside theri Germany and Canadian facilities.

Gene
Click to expand...

The Noctilux is still made in Canada! Which lens was made by Kyocera? There were some zooms with optical sets made by minolta and sigma, but the mechanics were always made in germany. Some _designs_ came from Zeiss or Schneider-Kreuznach but were nevertheless build in Wetzlar.
 
Re: Galen Rowell -- There's an interesting chapter in his book "Mountain Light" on the gear he used, including his selection of lenses and preference for certain focal lengths. I believe X-Ray is correct that Rowell used Nikon SLR 35 mm almost exclusively (although in one of his books he included a photo taken w/ an Oly XA). His preferred lens was a 25 mm Nikkor; he also used 85 mm and some zooms quite a bit for his travel and adventure photography. Mobility of gear was an important consideration.
 
Ultra pedantic moment: Nikkor doesn't have a 25mm; Rowell used a 24/2.8 (and yes, the 85/2 was a favorite of his). Sorry for that.

The famous shot he took of the rainbow landing on the Potala palace in Lhasa was taken with the Series E Nikon 75-150/4 (one of Nikon's budget lenses -- which I guess helps prove the point made more than once in this thread that ultimately it's the photographer, not the lens, that matters). I think Rowell was sponsored by Nikon, though I'm sure he was quite content to use their stuff exclusively.

Here's my problem with Erwin Puts: Ultimately his evaluations come down to conclusory statements that invariably favor Leica products, and any praise given to others' products is likewise invariably faint. I've read many of his in-depth analyses of lenses by Cosina and others, and there is always a point when the objective analysis, which thus far seemed favorable to the product, switches over to "ah, but the Summicron/Summilux/Elmarit is better." And that's pretty much all the explanation you get. Or "the [Leica competitor's lens] performs quite well on the bench, but of course it's in the field where it matters." But his tests are what? Bench tests. So the rules keep getting changed in order to ensure the Leica product compares favorably. Go read his Voigtlander reviews at his website and you'll see what I mean.

I'd be a lot more lenient if he openly admitted "hey, I'm a Leica fan and that comes through in my reviews." Instead, it's all presented as objective fact, and I have a problem with that.
 
"Ultra pedantic moment: Nikkor doesn't have a 25mm; Rowell used a 24/2.8 (and yes, the 85/2 was a favorite of his)."

I stand corrected. I'm at work, not at home where my Galen Rowell books are, and forgot the specfics of that particular Nikkor. And I should know better than to post among the RFF gods...
 
Sorry, didn't mean to come across as an a**hole. It is funny, though -- it seems like rangefinder cameras tend to use the 25mm focal length (Leica being a notable exception), while SLRs more typically use 24mm. In practice there's no discernable difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom