jaapv Posted September 11, 2011 Share #21 Posted September 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ummm.. the resolution of the summilux asph is higher and it is quite capable of producing moire... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M lens sharpness 50mm cron,lux,noct.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted September 11, 2011 Share #22 Posted September 11, 2011 Comparing sharpness (whatever that is) at f/0.95, f/1.4 and f/2 is like comparing oranges apples and pears. All have their own characteristic flavour but trying to determine whether their sugar content of each is similar or better is pretty irrelevant. There is far more to a lens than its 'sharpness' (centre or corner) and using this as a comparative measure has very little use. FWIW the 'lux asph is 'better' than the pre-asph wide open in the corners (and possible centre) - that is comparable;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 12, 2011 Share #23 Posted September 12, 2011 Modulation transfer data, being a combined quantification of resolution and contrast, is certainly a fair approximation of the experiental fact of 'sharpness' – if that is what we are mainly interested in, which seems pretty simplistic. "Sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers" (self-quote). Interesting photographs are made by interesting photographers, not by lenses or cameras. The now slightly irritated old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted September 12, 2011 Share #24 Posted September 12, 2011 Doesn t the current issue of LFI cover the 50mm alternatives (except the Noctilux). I thought they did a pretty good job of describing the way each lens renders an image. Since I work with 2 bodies always ...I have a 50mm on one body everytime I shoot. I use all three lenses mention plus a few more . I always try to match the lens character to the type of light I expect . The summicron has a beauty to its rendering in strong light. It renders with less macro (edge ) contrast than the lux or noct (0.95). Its color is warm and it reminds me of Kodachrome on a nice day. Going to the Caribbean pick the summicron. The summilux has stronger edge contrast giving the appearance of getting “sharpness” . Overcast days,rain ,available light ,black and white . Northern climates . I pick the summilux . Street shooting Paris. Can be viewed as clinical or overly contrasty when used in strong contrasty light . A strength in one type of light can be a liability in another . The new Noctilux is the pick of the group if you can stand the cost and the weight. IMHO there is clarity of color with the Noctilux that adds to its brilliance . Use it whenever you can. The summilux is the best all around 50 because it covers everything well and most things with superb rendering. Its small ,light ...has a short throw (faster focusing) . All three lenses are exceptional and have sharpness(resolution) that is enough for the M9 . So I believe it comes down to differences in macro contrast (edge),micro contrast(tone separation ) and color rendering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 12, 2011 Share #25 Posted September 12, 2011 And everybody is forgetting about that lovely little Elmar-M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 12, 2011 Share #26 Posted September 12, 2011 And everybody is forgetting that excellent little 50mm Summarit ... The old man, putting on his galoshes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted September 12, 2011 Share #27 Posted September 12, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Simply, if you can see the difference between day and night then you should be able to see the difference between sharp and not sharp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knomad Posted September 12, 2011 Share #28 Posted September 12, 2011 My 'cron and my 'lux, both pre-aspherical, both 1980s vintage, are both plenty sharp. They do however act a little differently on a film M body vs an M8; I can't really explain it, they're just not the same. The irony is that we buy lenses that are among the best in the world, then we put them on a camera that uses a small negative or sensor, and we go out into terrible lighting conditions and shoot hand-held... and then we pixel-peep? That's why I'm far more interested in the intangible qualities of a lens than in the final degree of resolving power in the corners. If resolution was all that mattered, I'd be shooting off a tripod, and missing all the wonderful spontaneity that is one of the strengths of the Leica M. It's perfectly good to prefer one lens over another. Unfortunately, the only way to really get a feel for a particular lens/body combination is to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted September 12, 2011 Share #29 Posted September 12, 2011 KNOMAD, your fourth paragraph "PRECISELY DOCTOR WATSON" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted September 16, 2011 Share #30 Posted September 16, 2011 I don't understand why anyone cares what the screen shows, when the only germane issue is what shows up in a well produced print. Jeff Like it or not Jeff, I suspect you'll find most photographers in the digital age now don't produce prints at all, so how it looks on screen is very much germane. While my photographic career spans a lengthy period, I have to say that I now derive more pleasure from seeing my images on a 30" high-end screen than I do seeing them printed. Radiant images just feel more alive to me somehow than even the best of prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2011 Share #31 Posted September 16, 2011 Simply, if you can see the difference between day and night then you should be able to see the difference between sharp and not sharp. Take off your glasses and you might see if it's a.m. or p.m. but without any sharpness... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted September 16, 2011 Share #32 Posted September 16, 2011 mnutzer, huh????????????????????, sorry but, I only understand English (US TYPE) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2011 Share #33 Posted September 16, 2011 cor. Take off your glasses and you will see if it's day or night but without any sharpness... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randle P. McMurphy Posted September 16, 2011 Share #34 Posted September 16, 2011 I don't understand why anyone cares what the screen shows, when the only germane issue is what shows up in a well produced print. I don´t understand why anyone anytime worry about lens sharpness and all those useless things, when photographers like Capa, HCB, Eisenstead made masterpieces with optiks that would be declassified by any modern plastic lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 16, 2011 Share #35 Posted September 16, 2011 I have a feeling you have never used these classic lenses. No way are they declassified as you call it by modern lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.