Agent M10 Posted January 3, 2012 Share #1 Posted January 3, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interesting post by Lens Rentals about the "sharpest" 50. The Great 50mm Shootout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here 50mm Shootout – Glad I kept my Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Racefan Posted January 3, 2012 Share #2 Posted January 3, 2012 Very surprised at the numbers for the Zeiss Planar relative to the Summilux and Summicron. Everything I've seen prior to this indicated they were all pretty close in sharpness. Hmmm... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 3, 2012 Share #3 Posted January 3, 2012 Thanks for the link. Wow, the 50mm Summilux was easily the sharpest from f/2 down to f/4. Its reputation is well-deserved. Interestingly, the two Canon 50's did very well at f/1.4, slightly better than the Summilux and Noctilux at center, and about equal in MTF average. Canon did not disappoint. I agree, the Zeiss 50 Planar was a surprise on the M9, not quite up to its reputation of "Summicron equal". The Zeiss 50 Makro-Planar (for Canon & Nikon) did better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 4, 2012 Share #4 Posted January 4, 2012 Is the Macro-Planar a Cosina-Zeiss lens as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted January 4, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 4, 2012 Is the Macro-Planar a Cosina-Zeiss lens as well? It is indeed Japanese made, but is built like a tank (as opposed to the other modern canikon lenses) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 4, 2012 Share #6 Posted January 4, 2012 And, don't forget that the tests to some degree implicate the M9 "system" as having the highest sharpness. Not just the lenses, the M9 sensor was able to deliver higher results than the Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3x used with their own lenses. Just saying that the M9 did not hamstring the M-mount lenses (compared to the other sensors). Nice. It sure is interesting that the NEX-7 (in the short run) will become a platform to test all of these lenses on one sensor and it will no doubt show off the Leica glass. Get 'em while you can. Leica glass is probably going to become even more unobtainium because people, being who they are, are going to want the highest rated lenses to shoot on their new high Mega Pixel toys. Hold on to your R glass as well. That is going to come around too. Everyone will eventually have high megapixel sensors but, the glass is always going to be the expensive part. Good optics is always expensive and I don't see a way around that yet. Also, the Leica Summilux outperformed the average readings from the Noctilux .95... a $10,000 lens! So, I will be taking bids on my Summilux 1.4 starting at $15,000. I think that is fair. Good luck bidding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted January 4, 2012 Share #7 Posted January 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) not to mention that the Summicron is a close second place.... great glass Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 4, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 4, 2012 not to mention that the Summicron is a close second place.... great glass Leica. Yes, it seems to best the Noctilux all the way to f2.0. Personally, I think you should get a Hong Kong address and start the bidding at $12,000! You could even through in a NEX-7 for the lucky winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 4, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 4, 2012 Yes, my 50 Summilux ASPH is THE keeper:). However I'll also keep my C-Sonnar for the nice 'olde-worlde' rendering for which I bought it. At least I now know why it has it's 'olde-worlde' rendering:D. I should add that: obviously there's more to a lens' performance than MTF results (especially with a sample of n=1), and I doubt there is any significant difference the central MTF50 for the Noctilux and Summilux at f1.4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 4, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 4, 2012 (I think it's worth adding that I doubt there is any significant difference between the central MTF50 between the Noctilux and Summilux at f1.4) Jeez Mark, this is the latest test du jour and it has Leica on top for a change. The guy said he spent all weekend doing it, it must be correct. He used a computer and everything. I just want to enjoy the good report on Leica for a change and not think too hard about it before the MTF'ers and resident optical PhD'ers find this and shoot the whole thread down in flames. And, I know they will because, for the most part,this really is a stupid test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted January 4, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 4, 2012 And, don't forget that the tests to some degree implicate the M9 "system" as having the highest sharpness. Not just the lenses, the M9 sensor was able to deliver higher results than the Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3x used with their own lenses. Just saying that the M9 did not hamstring the M-mount lenses (compared to the other sensors). Nice. It sure is interesting that the NEX-7 (in the short run) will become a platform to test all of these lenses on one sensor and it will no doubt show off the Leica glass. Get 'em while you can. Leica glass is probably going to become even more unobtainium because people, being who they are, are going to want the highest rated lenses to shoot on their new high Mega Pixel toys. Hold on to your R glass as well. That is going to come around too. Everyone will eventually have high megapixel sensors but, the glass is always going to be the expensive part. Good optics is always expensive and I don't see a way around that yet. Also, the Leica Summilux outperformed the average readings from the Noctilux .95... a $10,000 lens! So, I will be taking bids on my Summilux 1.4 starting at $15,000. I think that is fair. Good luck bidding. Nope, I think this test shows that lenses (Leica or others) perform best on the camera body where it was designed. Mix lenses and camera bodies and the result will always be worse imho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 4, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 4, 2012 Rick, Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/169814-50mm-shootout-%E2%80%93-glad-i-kept-my-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1887772'>More sharing options...
bill Posted January 4, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 4, 2012 Hmm... not so fast, Mr Bond... By the tester's own admission on the subject of testing M lenses: " This was the part of the testing about which I was totally clueless." We know that the Sonnar is optimised from the factory for film use. There is no mention that the test lens (singular...) had been re-optimised for digital use or indeed that the tester was even aware of this inconvenient little detail. If you don't understand the tools or how to set them up correctly how do you test them accurately and fairly? Full disclosure - I chose a Sonnar over a Summilux when I got my MP4. I've had mine re-optimised by Zeiss (at no cost). I chose Zeiss over Leica because, as a long-time Contax user I knew what to expect and what I wanted in terms of rendition, handling and image quality. I deliberately wanted to avoid the brittle sharpness of the current Summilux. "Tests" like this one are not about to change my mind. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 4, 2012 Share #14 Posted January 4, 2012 Bill, I agree with you. I do think the 'olde-worlde' C-Sonnar is 'sharper' than they suggest and certainly my experience with the lens, but I don't think to the level of the Summilux. As we've discussed before the different rendering of the C-Sonnar is what makes it so interesting but I think many don't get it. As you suggest, they probably hadn't adjusted the C-Sonnar but they did comment that they did work at trying to optimise focus with all of the M-mount lenses. Furthermore it shouldn't have much effect with smaller apertures. Again though this is an n=1 'study' by M-lens ignoramuses:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 4, 2012 Share #15 Posted January 4, 2012 I think Roger did a great job. He goes to great lengths to explain the limitations of the test. And it is interesting that his favorite 50 of all of them is still the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar. Zeiss doesn't seem to mention the optimized for film vs. optimized for digital factor on their web site or in their product brochure (possible I missed it?). The only place I've seen this mentioned is on the Popflash web site (where they note FFD distance of 27.86mm vs. 27.90). So it's understandable that Roger may have missed this detail, if he did. Even so, his test is perfectly consistent with Bill's view that the C Sonnar does not have the "brittle sharpness" of the Summilux. Perhaps the C Sonnar would have tested better if optimized for digital, but that doesn't seem to be its attraction anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 4, 2012 Share #16 Posted January 4, 2012 Having picked up the Lux a while back and shooting extensively with it over the last weeks (not a huge span, admittedly) I would have to agree - it's an amazing lens by any measure. And this, from wide open. Best lens purchase in recent (and then some) memory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 7, 2012 Share #17 Posted January 7, 2012 Oh dear....... These are the sort of 'comparative' articles that addle my brain in about 10 seconds flat...... It's bad enough looking at endless comparative photos taken with different cameras, sensors and firmware .... These numbers mean nothing to me and seem to prove very little ...... There are plenty of cars out there that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds.... but many are complete dogs to drive...... As Puts points out.... all the current Leica lenses have real world performance on the M9 which is hard to fault when their intended use is taken into account..... As always, by far the most important factor which makes all the others insignificant is the 'eye' and technique of the person with their finger on the shutter.... "It is the photographer, not the camera, that is the instrument". .......... Eve Arnold R.I.P. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted January 8, 2012 Share #18 Posted January 8, 2012 I guess I got a bad copy of the Nokton F1.1.. because my Noctilux .95 is soooo much sharper. Can't wait to get the 50 Summilux. .. Let's see waited from April-October with a dealer than went under so now thinking a couple more months. At least I get the 2011 price! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 8, 2012 Share #19 Posted January 8, 2012 Hmm... not so fast, Mr Bond... By the tester's own admission on the subject of testing M lenses: " This was the part of the testing about which I was totally clueless." We know that the Sonnar is optimised from the factory for film use. There is no mention that the test lens (singular...) had been re-optimised for digital use or indeed that the tester was even aware of this inconvenient little detail. If you don't understand the tools or how to set them up correctly how do you test them accurately and fairly? Full disclosure - I chose a Sonnar over a Summilux when I got my MP4. I've had mine re-optimised by Zeiss (at no cost). I chose Zeiss over Leica because, as a long-time Contax user I knew what to expect and what I wanted in terms of rendition, handling and image quality. I deliberately wanted to avoid the brittle sharpness of the current Summilux. "Tests" like this one are not about to change my mind. Regards, Bill Bill, if you are using your Sonnar on your MP4 and from the factory the Sonnar is optimised for film why was it necessary to send it back to Zeiss for correction? I ask because I will be using my recently acquired Sonnar on both my M9 and my MP. I expect to do a focus correction on the M9 but not on the MP. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted January 8, 2012 Share #20 Posted January 8, 2012 Bill, the tester mentions focus bracketing when testing the M lenses, so if he did that correctly it should not matter if the lens is corrected for film or sensor or whether the correction was off for both. Roger, (the tester) writes M9s were focused with the camera’s rangefinder and then several focus bracketed shots taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.