bentarrow Posted May 14, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recently got the 28 cron mounted on the m8. Love the rendition. Definitely sharper than Canon 16-35mm mk2. However 35L is definitely sharper, with less CA. Same white balance on both cameras, 28 cron gives better contrast, which I love What would be the sharpest leica lens lineup? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 Hi bentarrow, Take a look here sharpest Leica lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted May 14, 2011 Share #2 Posted May 14, 2011 You always use a sturdy tripod then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2011 Share #3 Posted May 14, 2011 The 'sharpness' of a lens is no more a quantifiable property than your joy, or aggravation, of using it: It is a subjective experience, and as long as we are not obliged to wear electrodes inside our skulls, it will remain unquantifiable. Different factors that lower the fidelity of a lens (longitudinal and lateral C.A., astigmatism, coma etc.) can be measured, in theory. In practice, we don't care to do so but go for the modulation transfer function which does pretty neatly sum it all up – with some reservations, such as focus shift, which is not accounted for in current MTF procedure, and stray light, which is the shameful disease of the optical world. So this is what you should discuss if you feel the urge. Even so, no idiotic 'sharpest lens ever, period' recommendations are justified, because even a set of MTF curves is a complex thing – contrast where, and at what f-stop? – and cannot be discussed in arbitrarily simplistic terms. Also, it is useless to compare the fidelity of a 90mm lens (field of view 27°) to that of a 28mm (75°). Apples and water melons, you know. The old man from the Age of Common Sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 14, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 14, 2011 Rangefound: Sharp is not the only fruit Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 14, 2011 Share #5 Posted May 14, 2011 Lars, I agree with everything you say, but you could be a little more gentle as you educate a new member, and still get the same message across. Regards, Mark The Younger Man from the New Age of Educating 'Sharp' New Members Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted May 14, 2011 Share #6 Posted May 14, 2011 I recently got the 28 cron mounted on the m8. Love the rendition. Definitely sharper than Canon 16-35mm mk2. However 35L is definitely sharper, with less CA. Same white balance on both cameras, 28 cron gives better contrast, which I love What would be the sharpest leica lens lineup? Any pictures showing this? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2011 Share #7 Posted May 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lars, I agree with everything you say, but you could be a little more gentle as you educate a new member, and still get the same message across. Regards, Mark The Younger Man from the New Age of Educating 'Sharp' New Members My temporal excuse is that I have lumbago. The real reason is that I do have a short fuse. But yes, I stand corrected, and hope that it will take ... The old man (ouch) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 14, 2011 Share #8 Posted May 14, 2011 Rangefound: Sharp is not the only fruit Regards, Bill I'm not convinced that some kit zooms equal your Elmar;). IMHO kit small aperture zooms are responsible for a lot of poor photography and more poor photographic practice. On topic, the problem here is that 'sharpest' needs definition within the context is is being used. The term itself is difficult to quantize as it means different things to different people. I recently sold my 28/2 asph but I have retained my 35L Canon. However in my mind there is no comparison and the 28/2 is a far superior lens - I still use the 35L because I have to - its a working lens - but out of choice I would have preferred the 28/2. Despite this it didn't suit me and has been removed from my M line up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2011 Share #9 Posted May 14, 2011 Rangefound: Sharp is not the only fruit Regards, Bill Bill – I have been overheard saying that sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers. No amount of sharpness makes a boring picture less boring. And of course you are right. That staircase is like a nude. I would do it with my 1960 50mm Elmar 1:2.8, at about f:4. But the 50mm that I take out with me is the current Summilux. Though being who I am, I mostly take the current 35mm Summilux. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing a 'low fidelity lens'. The proof of the picture is in the viewing. But the sheer visual vibrancy I get with one of my Summiluxes (mostly at 5.6 or so) makes me feel a song in my blood and a warmth in my old bones, and I am sailing to Byzantium. There is a place for everything that is first class, in its category. "I am a man of simple tastes. I just want the best." Another Oscar Wilde quote – and I did catch your reference, too, and laughed. The old man in his tattered garb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 14, 2011 Share #10 Posted May 14, 2011 Sheer micro-contrast at 40lpm is the 'Leica glow' of our time. The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted May 14, 2011 Share #11 Posted May 14, 2011 Yes, I think the sharpness business is way over done. It all depends on what results you are aiming for. I use my old 50mm, f1.5, Summarit for it’s pleasing softness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 14, 2011 Share #12 Posted May 14, 2011 I do love it when someone asks a question, and the responders do everything except answer the question. While I agree that sharpness is not everything (and can be a fetish), that does not mean that it is not anything. Leica considers the 75 and 28 Summicron-Ms to be just about the best lenses they have ever made, for resolution. And based an actual shooting experience, I would agree. They are superb across almost all apertures, from f/2 on. For its aperture, and especially at f/1.4, the 50 ASPH is also exceptional, but loses some steam at the closest focus distance compared to the 28/75, and a 50 Summicron (and many other lenses) can match it at medium apertures. The 90 Summicron ASPH could be considered a "rough draft" for the 75 ASPH - extremely good, but edged out slightly by the 75 at most apertures. Technically, the 135 APO would also rank in the top handful of M lenses for resolution, but such things as shake and rangefinder imprecision mean its best performance is not often seen. You'll note I leave out the 35s - because they are not among the top Leica-M resolution performers overall. They have other priorities than absolute resolution in their designs (small size or fast apertures) and give up some corner performance as a compromise. Personally, I don't currently use either the 28 or 75 Summicrons, because, indeed, sharpness is not everything - or the ONLY thing - and I find f/1.4 to be more useful than absolute resolution. But that doesn't make me blind to their capabilities. I also don't buy into the idea that one can't compare performance across focal lengths. There are times when either a 28 or a 50 or a 75 can get the picture I want. And when resolution is a key part of that particular picture, it is nice to know which lens will provide the better resolution. It is certainly true that more extreme focal lengths are more challenging to design, and that therefore if a 135 or a 28 can match a 50mm's resolution, one should give credit for the 28 or 135 designers for going "above and beyond" - and if they don't quite measure up, cut them some slack for doing darn well with a more troublesome focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted May 14, 2011 Share #13 Posted May 14, 2011 One of the reasons I bought onto the leica system is for the sharp crisp quality. Is it necessary for a great photo? Of cours not... But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Every time this subject comes up it is side tracked into a "sharpness doesn't matter" thread. I think people that are leica shopping already know that. So...back to the original question. I don't know but I would like to see your test shots of the canon being sharper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 14, 2011 Share #14 Posted May 14, 2011 I do love it when someone asks a question, and the responders do everything except answer the question. Well, often that is simply because the question cannot be answered. Any 'lux is sharper than any 'cron when used at 1.4 - obvious. The 'sharpest' Leica lens cannot defined by its 'sharpness' but by its 'sharpness' in a given context, if that is, that you can define 'sharpness'. Also, the OP mentioned that he was using an M8 (as I do). It seems to me the the M8 can be out-resolved by a fair few of Leica's lenses (at given apertures) so again the 'sharpness' issue is meaningless. I rather liked Lars' use of 'visual vibrancy' as a descriptor myself, and its certainly a good way of describing the comparison of the 28 'cron and the 35L. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 14, 2011 Share #15 Posted May 14, 2011 You always use a sturdy tripod then? Hi James What about the lens test chart, the focus test chart and the profile light for the veiling flare? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 14, 2011 Share #16 Posted May 14, 2011 The 90 Summicron ASPH could be considered a "rough draft" for the 75 ASPH - extremely good, but edged out slightly by the 75 at most apertures I think it more likely that the 50mm ASPH Summilux was the starting point. I agree with the others that there are so many variables that it's not really possible to answer the OP's question. If lens A is sharper than lens B at f2, but lens B is sharper than lens A at f5.6, which is the sharper lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 14, 2011 Share #17 Posted May 14, 2011 Hi The apo-telyt 135 at f/4 or smaller has amazing MTF, but you need a slab of concrete with a ball and socket head embedded in it to see the potential with PanF or Delta 100 ID11 1+3... etc. You wont see potential otherwise. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If you are taking photos the summarit 5cm at /5.6 or smaller may be the best performer. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janki Posted May 14, 2011 Share #18 Posted May 14, 2011 Many thanks to you Andy Piper ! You are thoroughly, and always respond seriously to questions that come up. Your posts are also in a pleasant tone. This simply means that they are professionally more useful for me to read. :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffp Posted May 14, 2011 Share #19 Posted May 14, 2011 I am not an authority on the sharpness of Leica lenses but I think Andy Piper rates very highly in the sharpness of forum posters! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 15, 2011 Share #20 Posted May 15, 2011 Steve, I guess I'd say the 90 APO was the conceptual model for the 75 APO (high performance in an f/2 portrait focal length) - but you are quite right that the literal first draft was the 50 ASPH, which design was adapted to make the 75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.