View Full Version : Erwin Puts tests Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses on the Leica M8
Today I went to Erwin's site and read Part 5 of his reports on the Leica M8 where he tested wide-angle Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses. He says that the 35/2 Biogon ZM is better overall than the Summicron 35/2 ASPH, and the new C-Biogon 21/4.5 ZM is better than the 21/2.8 Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses.
I think there would be very little in these lenses and it would take a discerning photographer to notice differences with normal shooting.
"
Summicron-M 2/35 ASPH and Biogon 2/35mm I noticed a change of character in the most important focal length of the M camera: the 35mm. Now in the M8 it will be the replacement for the 50mm lens in the film-based environment. The Summicron 35mm ASPH has been the standard bearer of lens performance for a long time. But the Zeiss friendly revenge has created a challenge: the Biogon 35mm is in most aspects the better performer. In the centre and wide open the Summicron is still unequalled as contrast goes, but measured on most other criteria the Biogon is the current winner. Note the higher level of flare for the Summicron in the corners. "
Mr. Puts in his own words.
testing lenses - mr puts must lead an exciting life :)
hahaha....rjas hit it on the nose there didnt he? Anyway One day I would like to own a 35/2 and I still think I would buy the leica just for its character
Post deleted by posters request
MCTuomey
12-31-2006, 04:54
Thanks for the reminder, Magus. Let's hope for a return to greater civility in 2007 on this excellent forum ...
summilux
12-31-2006, 06:53
i think his book on the leica lens, on the technical aspect at least, is quite accurate. (of course to him, the glow is just uncorrected optical error, much to the displeasure to some)
Erwin is nothing more than a technician reading numbers. I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing because those numbers certainly have meaning in a real world of photography. The one thing each of us must remember is these numbers represent a 2D world and are generated under ideal conditions and not a real world environment of 3D subjects. Varying light conditions, backlight and high flare conditions, camera shake, missed focus, film and processing variations and the technical skills of the photographer all come into play in the real world evaluation of a lens. This doesn't take into account each photographers vision of what is the perfect lens. From personal experience I've seen judgement of lenses more influenced by personal technique than on variations between lenses. Let's not even get into the influence of myth and magic around some lenses and brands. Not all photographers are created equal and personal biases play a big part in satisfaction with a lens.
I mean nothing personal by what I'm about to write but truly believe that a person can not make a true and honest evaluation of a lens if that person can not take it to it's limits in real world shooting. I also believe if the photographer doesn't really know great photography from average photography then there is no valid evaluation. Erwin is a very good technician but he is not a good photographer. Nothing on his website shows he knows anymore than the basics of photography much less have the ability produce a technically good image. In my estimation he only presents 1/2 the story about what he is testing. His story is based on theoretical conditions not real world conditions.
telenous
12-31-2006, 08:59
I don't like the usual Puts bashing. It is of course OK if it is justifiedly directed against the validity of his results but it is ugly when it is personal. And although it is impossible to defend tout court everything about whatever Puts has ever written it is still possible to say that, on balance, his writings are more beneficial than harmful to our small rangefinder community.
More often than not, real world shooting confims his evalutations - surely a testament to his optical testing. Whether such an optical expertise is required to actually use creatively the lenses is beside the point. By analogy, it would be most unusual if a race driver knew nothing about the engine of her car but it is certainly not unimaginable. So, it is a possibility. Similarly, whether Puts is an artistic photographer or not makes no difference to the validity of his optical reviews.
Also, as far as I can see from my photographic efforts that have gone awry, it takes no special effort to take a lens to its limits. Shoot contre jour or against a strong light source for flare. Shoot a flat surface for some distortion. Top it all with some coma from small light sources near the corners. Lens bad behaviour: there's nothing to it, it's a cinch. It is of course much, much harder to circumnavigate around these optical pitfalls without losing the photo, something which in my opinion, requires thinking on your feet and quick reflexes. None of which is required to do the testing of the lens.
Someone might perhaps say that Puts' tests seem to have parametres that favour rangefinder lenses in general (imagine on the other hand a test that awards maximum points to the AF capability of a lens; obviously rf lenses would come last) but I think there is nothing Leica specific about them. Again an analogy: I was discussing with a clinical psychologist friend of mine who administers IQ tests about the kind of thing that these test measure. His response, wisely, was that they measure your ability to succeed in IQ tests. Similarly for Puts' tests: what they measure is the ability of a lens to perform highly in his tests. Whether this is relevant to real life situations is no doubt a long discussion. But think about it: if the lens underperforms in ideal conditions (flares, distorts and is downright 'comatose' etc.etc.) what will happen in real life situations???
I believe that most of the animosity against Puts derives from two peculiar aspects of his writing: first, and less importantly, for his stylistic flourishes that could be interpreted as pomposity; second, and much more importantly, for his perceived allegiance to Leica and his insistence that their optics are superior than other on offer.
The first of the two is more cultural than anything else. If one can't read Puts because of the language then by all means one shouldn't. The latter though is a serious accusation as it implies sleight of hand and even bribing for setting up the test in favour of Leica lenses. But Puts' latest glowing reviews of the Zeiss lenses (the very reversal of fortunes between the Summicron 35 Asph. and Biogon 35 when used in the M8 being a case in point) show, I believe, some independence of opinion. Which is more than one could hope for from any human being, fallible creatures that we all are.
All the very best and a very, very happy rangefinder New Year (it is four hours away from where I am now) :)
I'm not poking at Erwin personally and I'm not talking about creativity. I'm talking technical excellence in photography other than walls, test targets and news papers. Erwin has shown nothing that tells me he would know a technicall excellent print from something an excellent printer would put face down in the trash.
I just took a look at his review of the ZM 25mm. He spends paragraphs talking about the up and down side of the ZM 25 and then his final statement is the 24 Leica lens makes more brilliant images than the ZM. It's not a quote but that's basically all he said in one or two lines. What kind of evaluation is this? What are the differences in rea numbers between the lenses. Is this only seen on the test bench or is this something I will see in an 8x10 print or will it take a 20x30 or 40x60 print. Is the lens better in what respect and is it 1% or 50% better. Statements like this are of no value at all.
From a great deal of experience thare's much more to evaluating a lens than a few simple test setups like walls, newspapers and lights in the frame.
My problem with Puts is I can't make heads or tails out of anything he says. His charts are incommprhensible and he doesn't seem to understand anything about web layout. Or digital cameras. And mind you I like charts and tables!
Rex
Working in sciences, I am confronted with evaluating studies and publications all the time.
One can clearly see that Mr. Puts is trying to conduct a serious analysis of different lenses. If one publishes data on lenses it is clearly easier to write about relative objective measurements than personal, non-quantfiable impressions. He seems to be doing a fine job with his experiments.
Taking his results and making a decision on a purchase one should clearly read all the other available data.
The fact that he appears to be paid by Leica (either directly or via equipment) clearly muddies the results a bit. Obviously, in this day and time, from a scientific standpoint it looses it's credibility because of it (and his data would not be publishable in a respectable journal secondary to that).
Clearly, I do take his results into account when thinking about a lens purchase. Too a lesser degress though than Sean Reid's evaluations (not paid by a company) or some of the outstanding assessments by some of RFF's contributors (e.g. X-ray).
No reason for bashing anybody at all.
It is the lack of trolls and moderation of tone that made me come form p.net.
Happy and peaceful 2007!
Andreas
Taking his results and making a decision on a purchase one should clearly read all the other available data.
The fact that he appears to be paid by Leica (either directly or via equipment) clearly muddies the results a bit. Obviously, in this day and time, from a scientific standpoint it looses it's credibility because of it (and his data would not be publishable in a respectable journal secondary to that).
Andreas
Thanks for putting this in better terms than I did. Erwin's evaluations have their place and should carry some weight in deceiding on a lens. My point is there is much more than numbers to making that decision. I personally would place Erwin's evaluations at 25% in regard to decision making and 75% on real world results and hands on experience by an experienced photographer.
I fully agree as to the real credability of anyone evaluating a product that is being paid by the company who's product he is evaluating. My college education is in microbiology and organic chemistry. You're correct in stating findings like this would not be looked on kindly in the scientific community.
I should probably make one more remark. Most of the equipment I use is based on a number of factors. I have my entire living depending on my equipment. Photography has gone well beyond the hobby stage forty years ago. Money is not a factor in my decision making. It only takes one assignment to make the cost of an entire Leica system plus spending money. I base my decisons on image quality, dependability, support from the manufacturer and comfort factor. Name is not important in any way. I own and use a broad mix of equipment and lenses. My view camera system consists of lenses from the current state of the art Schneider super angulon xl's to fifty year old Goertz Red Dot Artars. One of my most prized lenses for years was an early 1900's Zeiss tripple convertible Protar for my 8x10 and 11x14 cameras. My Leica system consists of a mix of vintage and modern M's and a ZI plus CV, Zeiss and Leica lenses. I've stated this before and will again, I know of no currently made RF lenses that will not do the job better than what the finest lenses were ten or fifteen years ago. In forty years I probably have only seen three lenses that I would say were dogs as far as design and performance. I could easily take any lens that Leica, Zeiss, Konica and CV make today and earn my living with them. The same goes for Voightlander, Zeiss, Konica and Leica bodies. In my career I've made a great deal of money shooting Rollei, Zeiss, Minolta, Pentax, Canon and leica equipment in 35mm. Never have I lost a client because of my equipment and only lost one set of images from a poor performaing lens. That lens was the famed Leica v1 35mm Summilux. Fortunately I shot only part of the assignment with that lens and shot the rest with my 50 summicron, 90 elmarit and 200 tellyt. Flare rendered the shots unusable.
Happy anew year!!
>The fact that he appears to be paid by Leica (either directly or via equipment)
>clearly muddies the results a bit.
I don't trust Putts as far as I could throw him -- I don't know if he takes payola or not and I don't really care.
But after he gushed all over the M8 and based on all the crap that came to light upon its release, can he really be trusted again?
I certainly wouldn't give him any of my hard earned $$$ read his, um, (un)biased opinions...
>I am not bashing him, I am just telling the truth.
Patrick --
Bash away if you feel like it. Anyone who puts themselves into the public eye opens themselves to just about anything -- except for blatently personal attacks.
And when one's credibility is called into question then katie bar the door.
I would have to agree that Puts is not a good photographer, as my teacher would say as a joke against "those people"...."if its sharp then its perfect!"
still, I like the idea of starting out with the best piece of glass possible (that I can afford) in front of my camera because I know that simply hand holding my camera will reduce the potential of the lens, as well as a dozen other factors in my day to day shooting, so why not start out with something good to begin with, tests that Puts does really puts (no pun intended) certain things in perspective, but I would never base my entire lens buying opinion on a test like that alone.
The best lens on the test bench may not yield the best negative in real use. Many more factors than sterile numbers and flat charts come into play to make a great lens.
markinlondon
01-02-2007, 08:42
The best lens on the test bench may not yield the best negative in real use. Many more factors than sterile numbers and flat charts come into play to make a great lens.
Quite. Take the lens, stick some film (or a digital sensor if you must :) ) behind it and take some pictures. Print the pictures. If you like what you see it's a good lens, end of test :)
Quite. Take the lens, stick some film (or a digital sensor if you must :) ) behind it and take some pictures. Print the pictures. If you like what you see it's a good lens, end of test :)
Very simple and effective. That's how we used to do it.
back alley
01-02-2007, 10:49
my favourite lens was the canon ltm 35/2.8 which i foolishly sold.
i doubt that lens would look so hot on an mtf chart but i liked the look the of the pics made from it.
this is what counts.
joe
Flyfisher Tom
01-02-2007, 11:11
yep, and look at the current 50 elmar-M ... not as spectacular on the MTFs as the summicron ... but it has its own very unique look that makes it a gem.
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
Where are the brick wall test shots on his site?
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.
anselwannab
01-02-2007, 12:43
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
willie_901
01-02-2007, 15:50
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.
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 (http://www2.photim.com/info/index.php) 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
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
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.
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.
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.
normclarke
01-03-2007, 06:44
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
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
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
willie_901
01-03-2007, 12:02
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
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
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.
summaron
01-03-2007, 13:40
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.
KoNickon
01-03-2007, 15:12
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.
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
01-05-2007, 09:53
I was waiting for it Magus :D :D
btw do you have Alkis contact information? is he here in London?
Post deleted by posters request
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.
... on the Leica M8 ...
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
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.
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
lshofstra
01-11-2007, 13:43
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...
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.
Hmm - a Puts bashing fest as usual. A few points to bear in mind:
So go easy on him if what he writes is not as tightly argued as it could be - it's a hobby!
C
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.
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.
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?
Huck Finn
01-22-2007, 05:50
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.
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.
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:
No one would buy a Mercedes Benz and will retrofit it with a BMW engine, even if it would fit technically. The characters are too different. So I am proposing that you should use Konica lenses on a Konica body, Leica lenses on a Leica body and Voigtlander lenses on a Voigtlander body.
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. :rolleyes: :D
Erwin's only reconfirming what many leica owners want to hear from a supposed expert, I own the best.
[quote=Huck Finn] 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. :confused: Does EP generate pop up's that clutter you screen ? Does he bother you with spam ?
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
01-22-2007, 12:26
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? :rolleyes:
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.
01-22-2007, 15:23
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:
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.
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...)
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.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.