Erwin Puts tests Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses on the Leica M8

[JSpicer]

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.

[Robert]

I think there would be very little in these lenses and it would take a discerning photographer to notice differences with normal shooting.

[LeicaM3]

"
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.

[rjas]

testing lenses - mr puts must lead an exciting life

[Avotius]

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]

Thanks for the reminder, Magus. Let's hope for a return to greater civility in 2007 on this excellent forum ...

[summilux]

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)

[x-ray]

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]

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)

[x-ray]

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.

[rvaubel]

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

[LeicaM3]

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

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by LeicaM3

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!!

[AusDLK]

>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...

[AusDLK]

>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.

[Avotius]

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.

[x-ray]

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]

Originally Posted by x-ray

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

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by markinlondon

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]

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]

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.

[Xmas]

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

[Jeroen]

Where are the brick wall test shots on his site?

[Xmas]

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