RF lens critiques and measurement

[scaryink]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it interesting that most RF lens analysis place a strong emphasis on flat field performance. Edge to edge sharpness is critical in 2D image reproduction but seems far less important in the world of wide field rendering.

 

I prize my Rodenstock process lens for its flat field performance, but use other lenses for portraiture or or Macro work.

 

The zeiss sonnar 50 1.5 seems like a fascinating lens full of character ( I really need to get one) but appears to be slammed by the leicaphiles who claim it is "mushy" and not sharp. Why is sharpness the measurement for beauty and image capture?

 

It seems that a lens which creates a signature with unique characteristics would be prized by the artist/photographer, yet on this forum, this is seen as a weakness.

 

Soo why is edge to edge sharpness so critical to a rangefinder?

[Gentleman Villain]

The main reason I like edge-to-edge sharpness is because it allows for more freedom in composition. The lenses I've owned in the past that had lots of character also trapped me into shooting the important subject matter in the center of the frame to avoid the mushy edges. It's great to own a lens that has a unique signature...but it can be a bit like an actor that can only play one character and isn't versatile enough to do anything else....after awhile the actor becomes typecast

 

There is no one-size-fits-all lens solution. No lens is perfect at everything....and maybe photographers should strive to own multiple lenses in similar (or the same) focal lengths and then choose the right one for the given situation.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

I think that is a very good answer. Lenses with good performance across the field gives you more leeway. A lens that is sharp overall can produce lots of out-of-focus if you shoot wide open, but you decide where. And when you need good definition overall, you can have it.

 

A lens should not limit you but enable you. This is why (now I'm sticking my old neck out) the Summilux 50mm ASPH is a better lens than a Nocti, because that is a one-trick pony. Aim your tomatoes here [ ........ ]

 

The old man from the Age of the Rigid Summicron

[SJP]

I don't think it is the sharpness per-se, it is the whole package: sharpness, lack of distortion and chromatic abberation, 3-D look. At f/2 - f/4 the pictures look 'natural'. That also applies to the older Leica lenses that lack the sharpness of the ASPH's but still draw a natural looking image.

 

And I agree with Lars re. the (old) Noctilux, the new Noctilux is more versatile I expect.

[Shootist]

As to the Zeiss and it being mushy, I don't own one and never have but have read about it and looked at many images made with it, but that is what users say about it.

Why would I want a lens that wasn't the sharpest I could get. I can always blur the image If I so choose. It the lens is already blurring the image there is not much I can do to recover it.