Best F/11 normal lens

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear forum.

 

 

I do a bit of landscape/architecture with my M9 and wonder the following.

It seems most lenses are tested at full opening and at f/5,6 , whereas I will be shooting at F/11 or preferably over. My dilemma is that I need to shoot some architecture/landscape where I cannot use a strong wideangle (too much foreground).

 

Which "normal" lens is best at F/11 ?

(In this regard I consider normal 28, 35 and 50)

 

Looking for:

- Uniform corner-to-corner sharpness. (Uniformity more important than peak sharpness)

- Least amount of distortion, CA (fine detailed metal objects and/or foilage)

 

(I realize that I'd better get a 8x10 camera for this but still)

So which one would you recommend?

 

35 cron?

35 lux ? FLE?

50 cron?

50 Lux?

28 Elmarit?

28 Cron?

Zeiss?

 

thanks for input!

[pgk]

If you go to Leica's own website you will be able to download PDFs showing various characteristics of all these lenses. For architecture I assume that distortion wuld be of real interest and I seem to remember that the 35 'cron exhibits very little.

 

I have used most of the lenses that you list (not the Zeiss, not the 35FLE, not the 28/2.8) and all work extremely well at f/11 but if I was in the position of using one for purely architectural photography I would probably opt for the 35 'cron. Your problem really is that the lenses you list are (can't speak for the ones I haven't used) all very good, so you are simply going to have to compare their technical characteristics to see which would be best for what you want to do.

[algrove]

You might want to also read LLoyd Chambers comparisons of Leica and Zeiss lenses. Also Sean Reid's site does very detailed center & corner analysis of many lenses for you.

[01af]

At an aperture as small as f/11, all 35-mm-format lenses are equally fine in terms of sharpness and evenness of illumination (with the possible exception of some super-wides and ultra-wides). That's why test and review sites/magazines usually don't bother testing at f/11; the results would be pretty much uniform and predictable.

 

This basically leaves only distortion for consideration, because unlike most other lens aberrations, distortion won't get reduced when stopping down. As far as I am aware, the Leica M lens with the lowest amount of distortion is the Summicron-M 50 mm.

 

In the 35 mm focal length, the (current) Leica M lens with the least absolute amount of distortion again is the Summicron ... but unfortunately the particular shape of the distortion tends to catch the eye. The Summilux Asph's distortion is greater by absolute measure but still less obvious to the beholder than the Summicron's due to a friendlier shape. The Summarit's distortion is special among the current Leica M 35 mm lenses as it is not the lowest but the easiest to deal with. The distortion slider in Lightroom or Photoshop is all it takes to get rid of it—unlike the more complex distortion shapes of the other lenses.

 

If distortion (or the removal thereof) is important to you—and if you're using Photoshop—then you'll want to download the ALPA Lens Corrector. It's a free Photoshop plug-in from ALPA Switzerland (google for it). It can remove the distortions of many lenses, among them virtually all current Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses (and a few discontinued ones, too).

 

In any case—you know that at f/11, you already are in the aperture range where diffraction will eat away a bit of the maximum sharpness. That's perfectly fine when depth-of-field and uniformity of both sharpness and illumination across the field are more important than peak sharpness ... but you should be aware of it.

[skinnfell]

I have both the 35 cron Asph and the 50 cron so If a bit of software is all it takes, then I am a happy shooter.

 

Thanks!

[earleygallery]

Get a Voigtlander and save your pennies. At f11 why pay more?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At f/11, all 35mm and 50mm lenses are pretty well uniform sharpness wise.

According to Jean-Marie Sepulchre who tested those lenses on the M9, the best performers distorsion wise in 35mm are the Summaron 35/2.8 (0.04%), the Zeiss 35/2.8 (-0.09%) and the Zeiss 35/2.0 (0.10%). The Summicron 35/2 asph is only -0.36% so it is not the best lens for architecture. Same for Voigtlander lenses (35/1.2 = 0.46% ; 35/1.7 = 0.34% ; 35/2.5 = 0.33%).

In 50mm, according to the same source, the best performer distorsion wise is the Summilux 50/1.4 asph (-0.09%) followed by the Summarit 50/2.5 (-0.11%). Voigtlander 50s are rather far as well (50/1.1 = 0.40% ; 50/1.5 = 0.38% ; 50/2.0 = -0.21%).

[01af]

I have both the Summicron-M 35 Asph and the Summicron 50 so If a bit of software is all it takes, then I am a happy shooter.

For the Summicron-M 50 mm, you won't need any distortion-correction software; this lens is virtually distortion-free. For the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph, you're going to need it only in extremely critical cases, i. e. when a perfectly straight line is running along near the frame's border up into the farthest corner. In most cases, however, you won't notice any distortion.

 

 

According to Jean-Marie Sepulchre ...

Who is Jean-Marie Sepulchre?

 

 

... the best performers distorsion-wise in 35 mm [focal length] are the Summaron 35/2.8 (0.04 %), the Zeiss 35/2.8 (-0.09 %), and the Zeiss 35/2 (0.10 %). The Summicron-M 35/2 Asph is only -0.36% so it is not the best lens for architecture. Same for Voigtländer lenses (35/1.2 = 0.46 % ; 35/1.7 = 0.34 % ; 35/2.5 = 0.33 %).

Unfortunately, you cannot simply rank lenses for distortion after these percentages. Distortion is more complex than a single numerical value can express. Apart from that, Sepulchre's percentages seem way too low generally—so whatever he's measuring, it's not the same what Leica states as the distortion values of their lenses. You can express lens distortion by various methods, so the percentages from different sources are not necessarily comparable. And different methods can even lead to different rankings ...

 

 

In 50 mm [focal length], according to the same source, the best performer distorsion-wise is the Summilux-M 50/1.4 Asph (-0.09 %) ...

No, it's not. While it has very low distortion indeed, the Summicron's is even lower. Moreover, he's got the sign wrong—both the Summicron's and the Summilux Asph's distortions are positive, not negative as Sepulchre suggests. I'd suggest to ignore this dubious source.

[pico]

[... snip good information ...] In any case—you know that at f/11, you already are in the aperture range where diffraction will eat away a bit of the maximum sharpness. That's perfectly fine when depth-of-field and uniformity of both sharpness and illumination across the field are more important than peak sharpness ... but you should be aware of it.

 

A side note that may not effect 35mm photography - but later, true Biogons designs do not benefit in terms of coverage by stopping down. This would apply with a Biogon with a shift when coverage is close to being maxed out.

 

I'm afraid that 35mm photography does not lend itself well to photography that requires perspective control - not really, compared to a real technical camera. It is nonetheless interesting and virtuous to attempt. IOW, there is a lot of architectural work with odd corrections that is interesting.

[250swb]

You can correct distortion in Photoshop, all you need is a wider lens to start with that will allow for some cropping. And a wider lens would perhaps suit the architectural side more since there will be many times you don't need to remove distortion but do want the coverage. Consider a 21mm f2.8 Biogon and use the money saved by not buying a Leica lens to buy Photoshop (if you don't already have it).

 

As regards diffraction, well no modern lens is bad at f11, its just not as good as f8, so its hardly worth thinking about, just use whatever DOF you need.

 

Steve

[lct]

... I'd suggest to ignore this dubious source.

Did you study it yourself? If not i suggest that you do.

[pgk]

At an aperture as small as f/11, all 35-mm-format lenses are equally fine in terms of sharpness and evenness of illumination (with the possible exception of some super-wides and ultra-wides).

Sadly, they are NOT! There are lenses, even from some major brand manufacturers and with very straightforwards specifications, which are not very good on digital at f/11. I have owned one or two which don't have good corners at ANY aperture.

 

That said, in the real world I'd suggest that none of the current line up of Leica M lenses fall into this category and that all have distortions which are (relatively) low in comparison to the vast majority of wide or even normal zooms. Both the lenses that the OP has will produce very good images and I would (and have done so) happily use either for landscape/architectural photos.

[AlanG]

A side note that may not effect 35mm photography - but later, true Biogons designs do not benefit in terms of coverage by stopping down. This would apply with a Biogon with a shift when coverage is close to being maxed out. But worrying about covering power on a fixed 35mm lens (e.g. 21 Biogon) is irrelevant because it can't be shifted or tilted to make use of any additional coverage.

 

I'm afraid that 35mm photography does not lend itself well to photography that requires perspective control - not really, compared to a real technical camera. It is nonetheless interesting and virtuous to attempt. IOW, there is a lot of architectural work with odd corrections that is interesting.

 

I had a 53 Biogon and while it may not get much additional covering power by stopping down, it did not have that much covering power to begin with when compared with Super Angulons, Grandagons and some others.

 

As for perspective control on 35mm, there are numerous tilt and shift lenses as well as various shift adapters that allow longer MF and other lenses to be used on 35mm. And you can do some correction in software. The recently introduced Canon 17 and 24 TSE lenses are extremely sharp with virtually no distortion, very little if any c/a, and have minimal vignetting. In my opinion, this is quite a breakthrough in w/a designs - especially a 17mm shift lens in the first place. The Canon 45 TSE is not as good as the new lenses regarding c/a when shifted, so I have to remove that in the raw conversion.

 

I use DXO software which can even correct zoom lenses to the point that they are very good for architecture. (No c/a, distortion, or vignetting.) I don't know why DXO does not support Leicas but it should.

 

There are other ways to shoot architecture in 35mm - one can stitch several shots together and then correct the perspective. (Autopano software is a good tool for this.) By having a 50 megapixel file or larger, the image will have more detail after correction than a single frame would have using any lens.

 

And another point - small apertures. Sometimes I have to use f11 or f16 for the depth of field I want and the images still seem quite sharp.

 

On occasion when shooting interiors, I can't get behind the camera and have to frame my image by trial and error via tethered shooting or live view to my laptop. So having a reflex viewfinder is not a benefit in such a case. There is no reason why a Leica could not also be used this way should they have a good method for tethering. And of course if they make a full frame model with live view, then using tilt shift lenses will be much more straight forward.

 

Here is a link to two very recent images that were shot "blind" and at f16. You can download them at full resolution for sharpness and also see where I placed focus and how it falls away. (And the numerous quite tiny dark spots from sensor dust that don't show up at f8.) One is with a 35 year old Nikkor 35mm PC and the other is with the current 24 TSE. I don't see why the Leica lenses should not do as well or better when at f11.

 

http://alangoldstein.photoshelter.com/gallery/F16-lens-samples/G000088wFQAE8xCY

Password: Alan (case sensitive.)

[wda]

Slightly off topic, but I often wonder why landscape photographers think that lenses must be stopped down to cater for depth of field and sharpness. Many years ago lenses were stopped down because their performance at wider apertures was uncertain, poor, unpredictable or inconsistent (or a combination of these factors) . With the high standards of modern lenses, and except for the need to include important foreground matter in deep depth of field, I don't think much is gained by stopping lenses down for landscape work. Many landscapes seem to start at virtual infinity when using M-lenses. With large format cameras it is a different situation. But with a digital Leica M camera, how much overall clarity is gained by stopping down much beyond f/8 unless your aim is to turn wild seas into milky flatness?

[Ellie]

When talking about the performance of lenses, I wonder how sample variation affects this? - article here and here (not about Leica lenses though)

[AlanG]

Slightly off topic, but I often wonder why landscape photographers think that lenses must be stopped down to cater for depth of field and sharpness. Many years ago lenses were stopped down because their performance at wider apertures was uncertain, poor, unpredictable or inconsistent (or a combination of these factors) . With the high standards of modern lenses, and except for the need to include important foreground matter in deep depth of field, I don't think much is gained by stopping lenses down for landscape work. Many landscapes seem to start at virtual infinity when using M-lenses. With large format cameras it is a different situation. But with a digital Leica M camera, how much overall clarity is gained by stopping down much beyond f/8 unless your aim is to turn wild seas into milky flatness?

 

You are correct in general and f5.6 or f8 should suffice in many circumstances. But our higher res cameras and viewing at 100% on large monitors shows that our previous views of sufficient depth of field may not be adequate in some cases.

[250swb]

With large format cameras it is a different situation. But with a digital Leica M camera, how much overall clarity is gained by stopping down much beyond f/8 unless your aim is to turn wild seas into milky flatness?

 

Well you don't gain anything, but equally you don't lose much if you need the DOF. The old formula for stopping down to f/64 with a large format lens works because the hole even at f/64 is much bigger than the equivalent hole in a 35mm lens set for f/22. So diffraction (the bouncing of light off the edges of the shutter) is less (almost non-existent) with a large format lens than with a 35mm lens. But far too much is made of diffraction when the alternative (if the flawed logic is taken to its conclusion) is not to make an exposure at all. You either have the courage to do it at whatever aperture is appropriate, or your conscience listens to perfectionists who never make an exposure worth looking at and you just go home with your tail between your legs.

 

Steve

[tobey bilek]

PtLens corrects all distortion.

 

Older Leica lens have less distortion in general than new ones.

[smdavey]

PtLens corrects all distortion.

 

Older Leica lens have less distortion in general than new ones.

why?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

But far too much is made of diffraction when the alternative (if the flawed logic is taken to its conclusion) is not to make an exposure at all. You either have the courage to do it at whatever aperture is appropriate, or your conscience listens to perfectionists who never make an exposure worth looking at and you just go home with your tail between your legs.

 

Steve

 

 

I agree. And so far nobody has bothered to look at the images I linked to a few posts up or given an opinion if they think that using f16 on them worked out ok.

 

Here is a link again to two very recent images that were shot "blind" and at f16. You can download them at full resolution for sharpness and also see where I placed focus and how it falls away. (And the numerous quite tiny dark spots from sensor dust that don't show up at f8.) One is with a 35 year old Nikkor 35mm PC and the other is with the current 24 TSE. I don't see why the Leica lenses should not do as well or better when at f11.

 

http://alangoldstein.photoshelter.com/gallery/F16-lens-samples/G000088wFQAE8xCY

Password: Alan