A new Summicron?

[._._z]

If they're so humble, why do you care so much?

[wayne_murphy8]

Dear Irwin, I believe that your contribution to the undestanding of Leica

design, production and knowledge of optical technology is very significant.

However, your reputation for objective reviewing is somewhat questionable

when you are so close to Leica and also because you unreservedly praise

everything, and gloss over, or omit, shortcomings. Perhaps you get hand

picked examples to test? Certainly, users here have experienced poor quality

control on many occasions. These are the people who keep leica in business

and they don't like to be misled by omission, no matter how well intentioned.

 

Some of Leica's R lenses are very ordinary indeed and should have been

withdrawn from production and sale years ago. Nevertheless, you continue to

state that they are competitive or some such term. Leica zoom lenses are

simply a joke, apart from the 70-180. Hugely expensive and slow. If you have

such a good relationship with Leica, perhaps you could pass on some of the

very valid comments from this forum because this is where Leica's expert-user

market exists.

 

At Leica prices, people are quite entitled to be critical, and even a bit

emotional.

 

Could you perhaps ask Leica to try to listen to what its customers actually

want instead of investing ridiculous amounts in exotic products for which there

is almost no demand and that almost no one can afford.

 

Best wishes for your future endeavours. Cheers.

[jay_.]

<<But who I am to argue with your giant ego. It may help if you would concentrate of studying books and stop commenting my very humble and insignificant contributions. Erwin>>

 

I'm not the one who publishes books and writes glowing informercials on every new Leica product that comes along, in advance of everyone else being able to obtain one, and then claims to be unbiased and not in Leica's hip pocket; using terminology siphoned and regurgitated from textbooks in an effort to appear scientific yet presenting not one shred of quantified, objective data; then facetiously refers to his contributions with false self-deprecation...and has the monumental pomposity to say somebody else has a giant ego.

[michael_b._elmer]

Dear Moderator,

 

This is enough - The Leica Forum should be open for diverting opinions, but courtesy should be a must!

[jay_.]

Let me guess: you're an Erwin guy?

[grant_.]

you all sound like crumbs from the same cookie

[steve_swinehart]

My information from a Leica rep says "new 50mm with a floating lens element." Adresses some perceived short comings of the existing 50mm for sharpness, fringing - whatever is important to the Leica lens designers. It's the next lens in the "refreshed" lens line to match up with the 28, 35, & 90mm. Claim is that the lens is sharper thoughout the entire focus range because of the floating lens element.

[patricks]

i don't pretend to care/understand the specifics of this particular argument - i shot, i'm happy - but i for one welcome erwin's precense on this forum and enjoy reading his technically excellent arguments. bring back the newsletter! :-)

[jay_.]

<<New 50mm

steve swinehart , jul 06, 2004; 04:51 p.m.

My information from a Leica rep says "new 50mm with a floating lens element." Adresses some perceived short comings of the existing 50mm for sharpness, fringing - whatever is important to the Leica lens designers. It's the next lens in the "refreshed" lens line to match up with the 28, 35, & 90mm. Claim is that the lens is sharper thoughout the entire focus range because of the floating lens element.>>

 

Seems like lenses aren't the only thing around here suffering from coma. Glad you came out of yours. That's the new 50 Summilux the rep's talking about. This thread is about a Summicron.

 

As for Erwin, he has demonstrated time and again a thin-skinned defensiveness. He's signed off the LUG and pulled his newsletter in a hissy fit. A published author needs to expect to be challenged and be prepared to respond neutrally. Especially one who's the spokesman-at-large (notice I didn't say "shill") for a company who one would assume is not trying to alienate its customers. I daresay I've put a lot more money in Leica's coffers than Erwin, as have many of us here. The real irony is that unlike the vast majority of Leica users, I happen to actually *agree* with much of Erwin's opinions of various lenses' performance. If he admitted that's all they are, I would have nothing for which to take him to task.

[__jon__]

>Jay . , jul 06, 2004; 05:25 p.m.

 

>As for Erwin, he has demonstrated time and again a thin-skinned defensiveness.

 

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! Oh my god, Dr. Ego-Bloat, armchair photographer strikes again. Once again Jay fills the forum with his gaseous discharge...

[jason]

its sad how mean some people are to a differing result.

Erwin Puts has really studied and tested the lenses in a real manner of use..unlike the American magazines which are terrified of advertisers or lawsuits...i am a "Erwin" person in the sense of his results.Yes,Leica products are expensive and in some cases not better made than less expensive cameras and lenses.The thing though is that "they" Leica M series have a special feel and result.Its not about lines per millimeter or MTF results.No its the way images look.If you cannot appreciate that most everyday scenes are 3 dimensional....

you really do not deserve a Leica.I find photographs with my Leicas.

I have to work hard to make photos with my slrs.

[jay_.]

Jon, if you ever actually came up with something cleverer than sixth-grade toilet-room remarks you might have a shot at getting through my skin, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening until you go through years of therapy to find out why your social development arrested at the oral-fecal stage.

[erwin_puts]

It is a pity that the members on this list seem to be divided in two groups: pro-Puts and

anti-Puts. It is my opnion that you do not have to agree or disagree with my articles or

statements. You do not have to like me and you are free to think I am being paid by Leica

and get tons of stuff for free and I am only writing what they want to hear and fill in the

blank lines yourselves. Yes, English is my third language and I have never claimed to be a

native and fluent speaker in the English language.At least I try to be understandable.

What I try to do is giving my opinions about leica products, support these opinions with as

many facts as I can assemble and try to be careful in dividing fact from emotion. I may fail

occassionally and I have no problem saying this.

My problem is with persons who put statements in my mouth that are not true. As in this

case: the image area of the lens is commonly divided in sections. The 35mm negative has

a radius of 21.6mm and the negative area is rectilinear. So there is a division in four parts:

the centre (obvious at zero), the edge at 18mm (the horizontal side of the negative), the

corner at 21.6mm. the vertical edge at 12mm. The centre portion of the image is most

often seen as the circle from zero to 6mm (image height), from ther eto the vertical edge

is often defined as the "field" of the image and the area from 12 to 18mm as the outer

zonal area and the rest is the corner and edge. This is the way I test lenses: I check the

performance in the centre portion of the negative, the field, the outer zones and the edge

to corner area. This I have tried to describe in all of my reports.

Then I find the remark by Jay, that I am using the concept of "field" just to make myself

an expert and confusing "field" with 'corner" to be beyond the normal intelligent and

civilized discourse.

I am not thin-skinned as some on this list assume. I am accustomed to critique and when

serious I adjust my behaviour. But the remarks my Jay are below the belt and a disgrace to

normal discourse. And in most situations I let it go. But sometimes I make a comment. In

another discussion there was hevay critique on my Summilux report, but after the

question to give specific details about my errors, there was a big silence.

I could comment in the same fashion: if someone notes that he does not see any

difference between the older and current Summicron in careful testing, I might remark that

this statement proves the incompetence of the tester. But I know how how difficult it is to

do some serious testing that gives meaningful results. I could give some advice, but I am

aware how aggressive this list has become and I prefer to be silent.

 

Erwin

[jay_.]

<< I could comment in the same fashion: if someone notes that he does not see any difference between the older and current Summicron in careful testing, I might remark that this statement proves the incompetence of the tester.>>

 

And so you have, on many occasions, perhaps implicitly but unmistakably.

[jay_.]

Quoted from your comments on the generations of 50 Summicrons:

 

<< It is perfectly legitimate to have personal lens-acceptance-procedures as are reported now on the LUG. Many of the finer points of Leica quality will not be revealed in this procedure. The sparkling clarity of the finest details, rendered crisply and finely graduated with excellent color neutrality is an everlasting joy and quite addictive: once you noticed it, you will not settle for less. But then the Leica M has more uses: photojournalists and other professionals will look for different criteria. >>

 

If that isn't a condescending backhanded slap in the face of anyone who doesn't agree with your "results" I don't know what is.

[joshroot]

<b>Everyone,</b>

<P>

This will stop now. While having enough useful information to make me hesitant to delete it out of hand, this thread has spiraled into idiocy.

<P>

Unless you have something to add to the original question (which had nothing to do with either Jay or Erwin), just let it be.

<P>

If you want to throw insults at each other, I encourage you to do it via private e-mail or your own web forum.

<p>

<b> [/END MODERATOR RANT] </b>