Just received our copy of Erwin's book. We ordered it through amazon.co.uk by way of the regular US amazon .com . Total, with shipping, was British Pounds 39.90 or 64.20 Euro. The first 106 pages are devoted to the "hows" and "whys" of lens design, glass selection and maufacturing. The remainder of the book is devoted to reports on almost every lens that Leica made. plus appendices. At first glance it was well worth both the wait and the price. Next week, I'm going to curl up with a wee dram of Takisker and peruse this find!

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 30, 2002

Answers

Sounds like intriguing reading, and since I like his website, I'll probably order one too...thanks for the input.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

If you are a Leica fan, it's worth it. The only thing I regret is that he didn't add more color photo examples.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 30, 2002.

There is quite an education in that book. A slow and careful study is definitely in order. Pass the Talisker please!

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), March 30, 2002.

You'll notice when reading Erwin's book that some of the old Leica lenses can outperform the newer lenses. Yes, I too wished for more color photographs, but it is a great book.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 2002.

Chris,

Do you recall which older lenses outperformed the newer ones? As a long time M user, I've gone through a lot of different lenses. Recently I began to archive all my Leica B&W negs using a 4000 dpi scanner. I've noticed that some of the older pictures are just as good or better than the more recent ( read: more expensive) lenses. I'm not a dedicated technophile, but understand there are certain qualities that endear a lens to its user. Believe it or not, I had a 35/1.4 pre ASPH ( the little one with the cool shade) that was freakishly sharp, yet also had a certain character that I loved. Others have told me that lens wasn't all that wonderful, but the one I had was. I sold it to get an ASPH (which I also like) thinking it would be all that much better. I miss that pre ASPH.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 31, 2002.

I have a copy too--a gift from a generous friend. My first impression of the book was, "My God, this looks dauntingly technical!" But it turned out to be a very enjoyable read and a highly useful reference book.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), March 31, 2002.

Erwin's book is a masterpiece!! It is a highly readable although technical in nature. You must approach it carefully and slowly, imbibing each piece of information slowly. A college physics class certainly hepls. It's a must for every Leica fanatic.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), March 31, 2002.

I have had Puts’ book for over a year now and it is indeed very detailed. If there were one thing that I think would have made it easier to read, I believe that would be that rather than having every lens grouped by focal length and aperture, the lenses should have been completely separated by type, LTM, M mount and R mount.

Just getting through the 50mm section for example is made even more complex than it needs to be by the headings. Some lenses are clearly marked for the type (page 121, Summicron R), while others are not identified by type as require some knowledge by the reader to know approximate dates for certain types (page 120, Summicron (II) 1957). Add to this the lack of pictures of the lenses, and one could be confused as to whether they are reading about the lens they are using on their camera. If all of the lenses were separated by type, it would be a clearer and more fruitful read in my opinion. For the odd lenses that were the same in both the LTM and M mount, then a simple heading with “see 50mm Summicron, page 117” would be all that is needed.

Most of us are pretty much using a certain range of lenses, for example the M mount seems to be the most popular on this site by a wide margin, so being able to go right to a section that only has those lenses would have made the book more useful to me.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 31, 2002.

This book works best in concert with books like Laney's Collector's Guide or some of Brian Bower's books. If some of the material that is covered by Laney was also included in Puts' book, it would have driven up the price (as would more color photographs).

Some of the information in this book may be depressing (like the poor showing of the 180 Elmar-R) or just the opposite (some really good R lenses dating back to the original versions).

BTW, Erwin mentioned in one of his newsletters that he's working on another book. This one is about cameras (I think). I have no idea when he expects to have it ready.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 31, 2002.

This book is a technical masterpiece and provides an extraordinary insight into Leica lens design and lens theory. The editing and proofreading are, however, appaling. There is a raft of mistakes, particularly in the lens specifications in the figures. For the price, I am quite cross about this sloppiness.

-- wayne murphy (wmurphy@powerup.com.au), March 31, 2002.

For a Leicaphile it is a good book, but I have to say Hove have done a lousy job of producing it. It has the bare minimum of copyediting so, as a result, Erwin's English is rather poor and his meaning is sometimes opaque. This is no criticism of Erwin as he is a non-native speaker, but I am surprised that the book was not much better edited. I think they could have used some of the money they spent (wasted?) to put color plates in the book (which in my opinion show very little useful, showing an ordinary picture of a harbor scene and a cat and telling us this demonstrates the superb quality of the taking lens seems silly to me for example) and spent it on a developmental editor. As a Leicaphile myself I "read through" to get to the meaning, but as a dispassionate reader it is not a wonderful read.

But I give Erwin great credit for trying to give us some objectivity in this notoriously subjective area.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Having spent three nights with the book - - concentrating on chapters two and three - - I agree with Robin. The book *is* poorly edited, and some of Erwin's language is obtuse; however, on balance, I've gotten more good information than bad from the book. The descriptions of how the lens designer comes up with the formula, then works with the glass blank production and grinding people, the mechanical production staff, and the assembly and testing folk to produce the finished lens are revealing - - - despite the lousy editing. You really get a feel how the manufacturing and assembly tolerances ultimately drive the final design and the cost.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), April 01, 2002.

Interesting book but, as others have stated, execrably edited. It represents a huge amount of work.

But I have several problems with it:

1. Puts believes and proselytizes the idea that, now that you have a superb Leica lens, you should enjoy getting the most from it: using the slowest, finest grain, film; and using a tripod. This is nonsense for the M6 which is ungainly on a tripod. a lens should be used for the aesthetic purpose that you want it.

2. In defining what he looks at, Puts includes the out-of-focs properties of the lens; but the bokeh characteristics are given for only a few lenses. I suspect that bokeh is something that Puts started looking at late in his testing program.

3. Puts seems to be an apologist for Leica and seems to be following the Leica line. When Leica was miles ahead of most other lens makers in the fiftie and sixties, even in the seventies, they stated that Leica lenses were not made to win lens contests but to produces good images: see, for example, the Osterloh book.Now, when the differences between the lenses of the best manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon) are much more minor, Leica needs much more precise measures to differentiate their lenses and justify the high prices. And now Leica lenses seem to be made to win lens contest, after all. The trouble is, when the differences are so minor, consumers, to a large extent, no longer care. Yes, there are differences betweenbut not to the extent that these differences will make or break a photograph taken with the best lenses of the best manufactures.

So, basically, while Puts' book is interesting it should be taken with a grain of salt. Ulitmately, the only meaningful way to test a lens is to use it for a year. Remember, the skill or artistry of the photographer is more important than the property of the lens. A good photographer can create art with a bad lens (not forgetting that there are no bad modernlenses being made the best manufacturers); but a bad photographer will not make better pictures with a better lens.

And yes, Puts' discussion of the use of UV filters to proctect lenses is absurd, and goes against his most basic premises -- he is for it.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

Mitch

Well the bokeh thing seems to be so subjective I am not sure it is really very useful for him to commment on it - there seem to be as many opinions about this as there are people - also one cannot quantify it, so it is much harder to talk about. I am not sure I agree with you about his view of M photography. He does repeatedly say that the tests only apply in ideal conditions. But yes, his list of films do not include Fuji at all if I remember correctly - a strange omission since there are probably more Fuji than Kodak users.

Your point about Leica lenses and the relative improvement of the competition is interesting and a good point, but this is nothing to do with Erwin. He does spew forth the party line, but then again I always find this difficult to react to -- how do we know if it is an "untruth" or a distortion? Perhaps it is unwise for him to enter into his personal views of why Leica does things as their reasons will always remain somewhat mysterious - just like any other company. The major criticism of him is that he is too Leica-centric - he is of course, but then the book is about Leica only. If he could and had the data to talk about all other lenses and cameras - god knows how big the book would be.

What I think he wants is a good editor to work on his sentences, his logic, repetitiousness and contradictory statements and his data presentation.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

"Now, when the differences between the lenses of the best manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon) are much more minor, Leica needs much more precise measures to differentiate their lenses and justify the high prices."

Mitch. With all due respect, how do you know this? Many people (users) thing Leica M lenses are better than the rest, and with all of the slop built into the Nikon and Canon AF mounted lenses, even an optically well designed lens may not provide go imaging quality for very long. I for one happen to think recent Leica M lenses are on the average well better than the competition. Notice I said on the average. This does not mean every M lens is better than every competitors lens, but that the line as a whole is better. Go ahead. prove me wrong.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.

George C. Berger informed us that...

"Having spent three nights with the book" - he's "gotten more good information than bad from the book."

What inquiring minds want to know, is how he knows whether the information is good, bad, or indifferent. After all, everyone seems to agree that Mr. Puts is a Leica "fan." And certainly George C. is not tearing down lenses and testing them. So how, precisely, does he know if this is the greatest technical compendium of all times, or, the greatest collection of smoke rings ever blown?

-- Edward Freeman (skeptic5285@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Eliot:

>I for one happen to think recent Leica M lenses are on the average >well better than the competition.

That is probably true, but my point is that the lenses of the best manufacturers have all gotten to be so good that the differences are often quite minor; that the differences may only show up if you shoot on Tech Pan on a 300 lb tripod and blow up the photos to 2x3 feet-- I am exagerating intentionally to highlight the point that the differences may really be minor for the lens properties that Puts is measuring. However, other properties may differentiate lenses more, properties that require more aubjective judgment, like bokeh.

I am not saying that Puts' book is not valuable, but that there are other things about these lenses that I want to know. Unfortunately, these types of properties may need long use to evaluate and, as I said, are subjective. For these types of properties I would not trust Puts' judgments; a lens connosuer like Mike Johnston would be better for that. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed reading through Puts' book.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 02, 2002.

One of the things you pay for with Leica lenses is wide aperture performance. To get the kind of performance that the APO Summicron provides at f/2.0 requires not just a team of people running computer programs but superior manufacturing techniques, longer development time, decades of experience and a commitment to make it happen.

IMHO, the thing that differentiates Leica lenses from all of the Nikkors I've owned is color rendition. I still believe that it's possible to see a difference with Kodachrome film projected with a prodovit projector. It's a waste of money using Leica lenses at f/8.0 with color print film processed at the local Walmart.

Of course, the fact that Leica lenses maintain their performance for decades probably doesn't count with pragmatists but it does with me.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), April 02, 2002.