From Erwin Put's latest newsletter..

"About the lenses I can be short: the TriElmar at the 50 position is better than the Summicron 2/50 at aperture 4. It may be a surprise, but the Summicron is not the nec plus ultra some people assume it to be. (Let us forget about the famous Summicron DR controversy). The Tri-Elmar is better. Period. In my view the overall best lenses for the M are the 24, 28 Summicron, TriElmar, 90 Asph and apo 135."

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), December 20, 2001

Answers

Oh well, I guess I'd better sell my 50mm now, damn, I really thought it was the best lens I ever owned until I read this.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 20, 2001.

Yeah, I saw this in Erwins latest newsletter too... However, here is what Erwin wrote a few years back on his site re the 3E:

>How excellent is the performance. Not every person will like the conclusion, but the 3E is clearly superior in all optical parameters to many Leica lenses of the 28, 35 and 50 focal lengths. With the exception of the mentioned 5 lenses (28 current and 3rd generation, 35 ASPH and immediate predecessor: (the 7 element Summicron) and the current Summicron 50) the 3E will outclass any other Leica lens of the 28, 35 and 50 focal length of previous generations by a large margin.<

Note that here, he has claimed the 3E will NOT outclass the current 50 Summicron, among others, so he seems to have reversed himself.

In Erwin's defense, I experienced the same phenomenon -- I found my 3E to perform so well at the 50 setting I decided to sell my 50 'Cron. The only advantage the 'Cron had as far as I was concerned was the 2 extra stops, and I had that more than covered with my 35 asph 'Lux. So I won't be beating up on Erwin too much for coming around to my way of thinking!

;-) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 20, 2001.

PS: Erwin also wrote: >(Let us forget about the famous Summicron DR controversy)<

FWIW, my DR Summicron did outcalss my previous newer version 'Cron in center performance by a large margin -- however it compared dismally at the corners.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 20, 2001.

I have used the DR and now the lates version of 50/2M, and since I have nothing to compare those against to; I am very plased with their performace, as well I enjoy Mr. Putsī tests, but I wander if those take the merchadoctenia rute.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

I don't know if I'd say the 3E outclasses the current or even previous 50/2 at f/4, but it's at least their equal. Like Jack I carry the 35/1.4ASPH along with the 3E and leave the 50/2 home. However I still own my 50/2 (well, 3 of them to be exact, a collapsible LTM, the 11817 and 11819) and carry the latter when I'm going with just one lens. Best compromise focal length and speed for me. I started out shooting a 50mm lens in 35 format and it's still the one I know best. Kind of like a 7-iron.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 20, 2001.

I presume that people who make statements on this forum about one leica lens being sharper than another of the same focal length Leica or another make, are first making sure that both lenses are coupling perfectly with their camera and that they have verified this by actual comparative film tests. (Erwin Putts excepted). I have found that practically all the Leica (2x M2, 2x M6, 1x M4-P), Nikon (Nikon F, 3x F2, 3x F3, 2x F4) and various Rolleiflexes I have owned over the years have needed some tweeking to their focusing arrangements to get best possible results.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), December 20, 2001.

I love absolutes like "...is better. Period."

I would bet that the 50mm Summicron would outclass the 3E at f/2.8 and f/2.0.... oh yeah I forgot, the 3E doesn't go there.

Erwin's list of best overall lenses leaves out any killer availible light (faster than f/2.0) lenses. That is funny for a camera known for its advantage in that area of photography.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 20, 2001.

Yes, I also receive Erwin's newsletter and was delighted to read what he had to say, since I have the 3E! I posted it to the LUG and LEG to see what their reactions would be.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), December 21, 2001.

I'm sure Erwin knows what he's talking about. I read him too. But let's not abandon our favorite lenses or doubt ourselves and what we have learned by experience, every time some self-appointed authority figure is pleased to express an opinion.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 21, 2001.

Funny how Erwin gets people's backs up. I think he's completely honest, committed to optical quality without compromise and knows very well what he's talking about. It's hardly surprising that newer designs outperform older ones, is it?

While I respect Erwin's conclusions, they really don't have much bearing on my photography because I never use heavy tripods, very slow film and so on. What I do know, is that the 24/2.8 and 35/1.4 asphs knock the socks off anything else in those focal lengths, which is pretty much what Erwin says as well. And I think that edge can be seen even handholding at 1/15th in natural light. As for the 50/2, I have one, but it just doesn't have the bite of the newer lenses, at least to my eyes.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 21, 2001.

> Let us forget about the famous Summicron DR controversy <

WHAT was the controversy about? how does the DR rate to the latest 50'cron for those who have both..

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), December 21, 2001.

sparkie,

Go to the Leica Historical Society at

http://www.lhsa.org/viewfinder.html and peruse some of the opinions there. Look especially at Vol 32 number 3 from 1999. This doesn't cover the entire debate between Erwin and others about the DR/Rigid vs. later 50's but it'll give you some good reading material.

Bud

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), December 21, 2001.

I am also an admirer of Erwin's. Well sometime you have to cut the guy some slack. His book is pretty cautious I think, but it is impossible to be objective about lenses altogether because it depends what focal lengths you like and what speed you need and so on. It is clear that Erwin loves his 24mm for example, despite an equal write up on the 21mm ASPH, he clearly rarely uses this focal length. He is also a 3E convert - good for him, but as Al says, it is a useless lens at f2. Also I think he is reacting against the endless waffle that often comes from people about the plasticity, tonality, coloration, bokeh stuff that so many Leica users go on about with their early lenses. Most of these terms, while there is somthing in then, are difficult to actually test - Erwin concentrates on what he can actually test and that is what he comments on.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

Erwin is certainly a hard and keen worker, and a prolific writer. He also has solid relations with Solms, direct and via the Dutch importer. That does not make him dishonest, but does create a level of intimacy between supplier and commentator that is not healthy from a deontological point of view. Too close to be comfortable.

His revenues do not depend exclusively on his editorial work, or on Leica's good will, but his almost exclusive focus on Leica goods does not incite him to visit other suppliers with the same energy and determination. He did work on (and with) Cosina for the latest crop of Voigtlander lenses, but that is just about all (OK, a few tests on the Konica RF line and a couple of visits to other 3d party LTM efforts).

I have his book, and have read it through many times. I do not find his editing really imaginative, and I cannot believe he submitted ALL that hardware to equal test procedures. There is only 24hrs in a day, and only very limited access to some of the "tested" specimens. The same sentences and considerations come back from lens to lens. Some descriptions are confused (partly due to the fact that English is not his native language).

Of course, he is precious to the Leica community, if only by the sheer quantity of information he circulates. Nobody else provides any similar effort. So, just like Erwin focuses all his attention on Leica products, we, the Leica community, focus all our attention on Erwin's contributions.

We should probably adopt a more prudent stance when confronted to his work, and avoid exagerating the objective weight of his considerations.

I respect him of course, but will not consider his views as any kind of Torah. I will keenly read (real) first hand experiences by other contributors, especially from those who use multiple platforms, and those who do produce a large crop of photographs. I will also carefully read tests published by other media, and will build my pre-purchase opinion on an evenly weighed mix.

To come back on the 50/3E discussion, this is not the first and only time Erwin contradicts himself from text to text on marginal issues. And this is a marginal issue. Unfortunately for the credibility of his efforts, such nuances always seem to end up pushing forward the most recent Leica product. The one Solms needs to sell to get revenue, not the one that can be found at a good price on the 2nd hand market (like the 50 'cron, the 90 'cron or the 135 TE).

But as Erwin himself always states : to see any marginal difference, you must use high res slide film (K25 or K64), a heavy tripod and a shutter speed faster than 1/250 s. In other words, to see the difference, you must use the Leica against its own credo. Barnack would highly disapprove of such drastic shooting constraints (and so would HCB, Salgado and all our other 35mm icons).

Conclusion: it is good to know that all current Leica lenses perform very well at maximum aperture. That f1,4 is fully useable on all current 'luxes (the weak spot of most of the competitors and Leica's major USP) and that all M lenses since the Fifties will bring back excellent imaging from f4 down. All the rest is of limited interest. ..

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

Jacques wrote: >... this is not the first and only time Erwin contradicts himself from text to text on marginal issues. And this is a marginal issue. <

I think Jacques makes the quintessential point here; there are differences, but how significant are they to in real-world use?

Based on Erwin's review of the 21 asph vs the 21 pre-asph, I ran out and bought one. The new lens cost about $600 more than I was going to get for my older one, but because the differences were so great, I had to have it. I believe Jay had a similar experience with the 135. At any rate, when I tested the two the way I use them, there was in reality, only a very slight difference. In essence, I paid $600 for the convenience of the new lens accepting E55 filters over E60's and having a bit sharper image at the edges.

So, while I respect Erwin's test results as factual, I think potential purchasers should be critical of the degree of difference being discussed...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

Jacques' points are good and I think this is pretty fair. His English is bad and amazingly no one at Hove edited his book to make it clearer. But the fact remains he is the ONLY person I know of who has tested all these lenses at all systematically. As such this makes his opinion useful. I do agree with Jacques that some lenses in his book have not been treated with the same detail as others: the long R teles come to mind. We can only speculate as to why. However comparison testing lenses like he does is not exactly a short term job. His book I therefore kind of view as a work in progress. As to whether he is too close to Solms I cannot tell. All I can say is that he must be doing a great job of selling VC lenses for Cosina too. He probably is not very interested in testing Canon lenses, maybe he will do this sometime - who knows. As to his inconsistancies: I hate to say it but even he is allowed to change his mind sometimes, it is not really his fault if people choose to slavishly follow his views.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

Jack

"the slavish" comment was not meant to be a dig at you (or Jay)!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

I have to start off with my own few lenses. They are (no, and not unfortunately, not Erwin's Tri-Elmar, 24, 28 Summicron, TriElmar, 90 Asph and apo 13) however my 2.8/21A, 2.0/35A, 2.0/50 latest penultimate 'cron and 2.8/90. But that's my problem.

Now my personal feeling: Erwin is, of course a well-known Leica publisher and much of what he has said is very informative. Many Canadians love Holland and vice versa. But what disappoints me here -- and is the reason that I (myself) now read less and less of what he writes -- is that his site info is sometimes two years old and there are many mistakes and/or ommissions present in his tables. What I sometimes really need to get is always only somewhere else. No problem. All I want to say is that although I have little against him, he is -- for me -- in no case a great "handbook". BTW, I don't know of any other great handbook either. Not even Leica's own "Handbook". That isn't much more than their own catalog. The best info I have ever got -- and I have always got -- is from this whole forum. So!

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 21, 2001.

The 50-or-3E choice is as old as a Mercedes-or-BMW choice. Some people prefer the one, some people prefer the other. Oops, sorry for sticking to German stuff. Ahhh, then there are apples or oranges...

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 22, 2001.

The Tri-Elmar is a neat idea. But as a pro, I could not justify it for anything but a "vacation" lens. Many of my best 50mm images are taken at 1/15th at f/2, at 28 inches. Great for tight face shots with a bit of shoulder, sharp eyes and lashes, and yes, great bokeh! This is part of the "zen" of the 50mm 'cron. The Tri just cannot go there.

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), December 22, 2001.

Of course the 3E fails to deliver when you need a low-light lens. Is that surprising? For that very reason I bought a (1970s) 50mm Summilux to use when the 3E is too slow. I don't think Leica ever intended the 3E to be a one-and-only lens. It's no different from an SLR user buying an f/4 zoom lens, knowing full well that it won't meet all his/her needs.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), December 24, 2001.