Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?
From: "Dan States" <dstate1@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:07:34 +0000

So, do we really believe that the old Olympus 90 is as good or better than 
the new APO-Summicron?  For that matter, according to this site, the old 
Summicron 90 R is nearly as good as the new APO. I own the R and while it is 
fine for it's day, it sure as hell is not going to match the new APO.

According to the rating scale, a c rating indicates the performance is 
unacceptable above 5x7 enlargment.  Quite a suprise to many APO and non APO 
users Im sure, as they will now realize that their lenses should not be used 
at f2 for anything larger than a 5x.  Jeepers, time to toss my slides.

Some of the Leica lenses are VERY old, and are being tested on Olympus 
bodies.

While I agree from experience that some of the Olympus stuff was/is quite 
good, it is a little far fetched to say they were/are at the top of the 
game.

Sorry, but this is a test site that doesn't pass the test of good science.  
Ahh, the internet, where myth and science are one...

Best wishes
Dan States

> > The Olympus OM system also has a good reputation for macro work.  The 50
> > mm f/2 and 90 mm f/2 are reputed to be the equal of Leica glass.  The 4T
> > body is available (used) for about the same $$ as the Contax, and a "2"
> > series for around $200.  You could also pick up a 50 mm /f3.5 for $160,
> > and get a 50 mm f/1.8 for another $30 for non-macro work.  The 50 will
> > get down to 1:2 on its own, and 1:1 with a 25 mm extension tube.
> >
> > See this site for a detailed OM lens tests:
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
>I'm glad someone mentioned Gary Reese's OM lens test site.  While the
>site is largely devoted to lenses for the Olympus OM system, Gary has
>several Leitz/Leica lenses on the site as comparisons.  There's also a
>few Nikkor, Canon, and Minolta and Pentax lenses.  Kyle's favorite
>bargain rangefinder (Canonet QL-17) is there, too, and it doesn't come
>off badly.
>
>Gary uses a large USGS topographic map of the Grand Canyon as the test
>target at 1:40. The target has low-contrast as well as high-contrast
>components.  He evaluates the resulting slides on a good projector.  The
>result is a very consistent and real-world evaluation.  He also shows
>how the mirror and automatic diaphragm on an SLR significantly affect
>picture quality.
>
>Anyway, if you want to see how a few Leica lenses compared to the
>others, check out Gary's site.  He includes the 50mm Summicron-M and 90
>APO Summicron-M, and the 28mm Elmarit-R and 90mm Summicron-R.
>
>Of course, bokeh, "glow," "look," and Pride of Leica Ownership are not
>included in the tests.  :-)
>
>--Peter Klein
>Seattle, WA


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Replies: Reply from John Hudson <xyyc@home.com> (Re: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How good/bad/terrible is the R4?)