web page with R-system reviews

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I've set up a web page with links to my reviews of a number of R-system camera bodies and lenses:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica

It's incomplete but I'll be adding to it as time and info permit. If anyone has photos of equipment I'm missing I'd appreciate a copy to use on this page.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 16, 2001

Answers

What are you missing that you need pics of, Doug? I'm afraid I probably have it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 16, 2001.

Does any one has put its handsī, in the book review of Erwin Puts. I wonder if there is something new.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 17, 2001.

Roberto,

I have had Erwin Puts' new book, "Leica Lens Compendium" for a while now. If Tony thinks it is appropriate, I could post a book review on this forum. The short summary is that as expected from Erwin, the detail is deep, especially the first section regarding the theory of design, design philosophies, and chronology of optical advancements. Every lens ever offered from Leica is reviewed in narrative form, and when appropriate, comparisons are made... for example, "Lens X performs at f/2.0 better then lens Y did at f/5.6..." Statements like this are used to compare a new and old lens of the same focal length and f-stop, showing improvements in design.

For the person the a single M and a Summicron, happy to shoot with this simple set up, the book would offer little other than the historical perspective. For the person ever on the lookout for the odd lens on the used shelf, or on Ebay, the information could help. The biggest problem is that sample variations could not be factored into the accuracy, and some of the performance descriptions don't match my experience with the dozen or so Leica lenses I've owned and used, but I suppose that Leica has more consistent performance than most companies.

The book is not a quick read, and if the desire is to simply look up a single lens or two, much of it would be superfluous. To the amateur historian, it is a valuable source, especially when read in conjunction with existing reference material.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 17, 2001.


Are you kidding, Al? Of course I think it's appropriate! Post on!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 17, 2001.

As much as is written to disparage the use of quantitative data (MTF, lppm etc.) to assess lenses, it does have its virtues. As concise as all of Erwin's opinions are, they are still opinions and like Al I've found some my experience causes me to disagree with. Lacking a quantitative standard of reference, one would really have to sit down with Erwin and compare a slide or two or ten to learn how his definition of low, medium and high contrast, or slightly vs very soft relates to one's own. Or, simply take him at his word, which doesn't happen too often in the realm of scholarly texts. Nonetheless one has to admire Erwin for doing what no one has done before. I've read other books on Leica lenses (and Nikon lenses) and the issue of optical performance was either omitted in favor of purely cosmetic descriptions, or so blatantly subjective "a blazingly sharp, killer lens" that it was laughable.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2001.


In this respect I think one has to admire a site like photodo which is at least trying to get out some good comparative data with no (or little) interpretation. I am all in favor of MTF graphs - they are pretty unequivocal in their data presentation - the problem is always going to be the things it does not measure - bokeh and so on and also more to the point how you compare MTF graphs and the significance of the difference between small differences in the curves for different lenses.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ