ashwinrao1 Posted March 28, 2012 Share #1 Posted March 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi all, I thought that I'd post an interesting read from over at Steve Huff's site by Brad Husick. He tested 8 current or recent production 35 mm lenses on the M9 and posted images, with center and corner crops.... It's worth checking out for anyone deciding on what lens to snag. Granted, there may be lens to lens variation, but still, worth a look. The Great 35mm Rangefinder lens Shootout! by Brad Husick | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Comments encouraged.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 28, 2012 Share #2 Posted March 28, 2012 Good demonstration of how prone the M9 is to moire - certainly matches my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoarFM Posted March 29, 2012 Share #3 Posted March 29, 2012 Hi all,I thought that I'd post an interesting read from over at Steve Huff's site by Brad Husick. He tested 8 current or recent production 35 mm lenses on the M9 and posted images, with center and corner crops.... It's worth checking out for anyone deciding on what lens to snag. Granted, there may be lens to lens variation, but still, worth a look. The Great 35mm Rangefinder lens Shootout! by Brad Husick | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Comments encouraged.... I have 2 35mm's not tested here. My 35 Summicron IV is a fine lens well behaved at all apertures. I have a voigtlander 35 1.2 v2 which is beautiful wide open and biting sharp when stopped down a few, but it is a sizable lens compared to the summicron. Each has its place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baci Posted March 29, 2012 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2012 Yep - interesting article. Recommended. I'm actually trying to think of why (apart from resale price) I'd opt for a 35 Summarit when the Zeiss is apparently so good... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Helm Posted March 29, 2012 Share #5 Posted March 29, 2012 Interesting, but there is much more to lens comparison than line pairs pr mm. An important property is low flare and Leica lenses use to stand out in this respect. But tests are mostly about 100% crops, not about how a print looks in say A3+, where lack of flare is important for clean colors and good contrast. This test is also done on a low-contrast scene, why not a back-lighted scene with high contrast, where Leica glass use to excell? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted March 29, 2012 Share #6 Posted March 29, 2012 I had the voightlander 35 1.2 and it was a lovely lens but there was something just not there that the 35lux has. I can't explain it. Before you all chip in I don't mean the price tag. There images looked great but not popping. I can't even put my finger on it but it just didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted March 29, 2012 Share #7 Posted March 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yep, interesting read. Though it only confirms what's been said all along.. 1) Leica makes lenses that are best of the best 2) Zeiss makes top lenses as well, which are right up there to compete with modern Leicas. Maybe just a tiny hint behind Leicas 3) CV also makes fine lenses, with some models standing proudly side-by-side with Zeiss. Though sample variations can be somewhat big. And after these 3 the rest follows to a lesser degree.. anyway, you can't go wrong with the two first ones and you also "get there" by carefully selecting your cv options. //Juha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scjohn Posted March 30, 2012 Share #8 Posted March 30, 2012 I just purchased the new lux 1.4. I loved the former 1.4 but it took 3 frames to say "wow." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhusick Posted March 30, 2012 Share #9 Posted March 30, 2012 Interesting, but there is much more to lens comparison than line pairs pr mm.An important property is low flare and Leica lenses use to stand out in this respect. But tests are mostly about 100% crops, not about how a print looks in say A3+, where lack of flare is important for clean colors and good contrast. This test is also done on a low-contrast scene, why not a back-lighted scene with high contrast, where Leica glass use to excell? Hello from the author of the shootout. I don't think I ever mentioned line pairs pr mm in my article. I was simply looking at how detailed and sharp the images appeared to a non technical observer. I tried to take a photo that many people might take, rather than something that would favor one type or brand of lens. Also, surprisingly few people print (some say fewer than 9%) so the 100% crops might be useful to more people. Thank you for the comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 30, 2012 Share #10 Posted March 30, 2012 Don't understand the difference in performance between Summicron black and chrome. Is it due to production or body material differences, or test accuracy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted March 30, 2012 Share #11 Posted March 30, 2012 Hello from the author of the shootout. I agree. Who cares of shooting brick walls? Try to focus braket also the Summarit: I bet you will get a better performance. Infinite focus of Summarit 35 and 50 is slitly Beyond true infinite. Turn back just a little and contrast and focus will improve a lot. The same as skopar. Fgcm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralf Posted March 30, 2012 Share #12 Posted March 30, 2012 I got a new 35 Summarit yesterday, so far, I am truly impressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 30, 2012 Share #13 Posted March 30, 2012 Quoth Brad: "The Leitz Summaron from 1959 is a beautiful lens with sculpted sloping edges and an unusual focus tab that incorporates an infinity lock. Sharpness of the Summaron was soft, but lacked any chromatic aberration – a surprising result for such an old design and the state of lens coatings from that time period. The softness of the lens was pleasing, giving a somewhat nostalgic look to the photograph." What Brad saw was not chromatic aberration (see the stair railing) but colour moiré. The reason why lenses like the Perar and the old Summaron do not give rise to it, is that their resolution is not greater than that of the sensor (with its colour-filtered regular pixel pattern). LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artichoke Posted March 30, 2012 Share #14 Posted March 30, 2012 too bad either of the CV 35 f1.2 offerings weren't included as they are excellent optically doing such comparisons well is no simple matter & I congratulate Mr. Husick thanks to Ashwin for sharing this link Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhusick Posted March 30, 2012 Share #15 Posted March 30, 2012 I have published an update to the article including a new test of the Skopar and two other cameras for quick comparison. Thank you for the comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 30, 2012 Share #16 Posted March 30, 2012 I would prefer honest reviews and real pictures, this doesn't tell me very much.... Plus why shoot a 1.4 at f4 to assess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 30, 2012 Share #17 Posted March 30, 2012 This is a comparison not a review. To me a review is an in depth examination of a lens, its strengths, weaknesses and suitability for the reviewer's purposes. Comparisons are just that, and are only valid for the conditions under which they are carried out. As can be seen from the variation between chrome and black lens, it can be difficult to compare lenses as to do so requires an appreciation of, and IMHO the carrying out of, any adjustments needed prior to the comparison. Otherwise all it tells us is how specific, individual lenses perform under a specific set of conditions. That the same optics should perform differently indicates that there is a problem with adjustment, not that one lens is better than another (sorry Brad). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 30, 2012 Share #18 Posted March 30, 2012 Hello from the author of the shootout. I don't think I ever mentioned line pairs pr mm in my article. I was simply looking at how detailed and sharp the images appeared to a non technical observer. I tried to take a photo that many people might take, rather than something that would favor one type or brand of lens. Also, surprisingly few people print (some say fewer than 9%) so the 100% crops might be useful to more people. Thank you for the comments. Thanks Brad. Unlike some comment here, I found the article instructive. We are so much better off when people actually do things which make us better informed. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 30, 2012 Share #19 Posted March 30, 2012 Sorry if I came across a little negative but with experience of the lenses there was much more to offer. There are so many resolution comparisons and I have found they tell me very little if they are acceptably sharp. Any views of how they render and paint an image, how the transition into OOF looks ? Sometimes subjective and difficult to describe but pixel peek with a MK Iv summicron in the. Corners compare to an asph and the asph wins, hands down. But having tried both I know why some prefer the non asph Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted April 1, 2012 Share #20 Posted April 1, 2012 I would prefer honest reviews and real pictures, this doesn't tell me very much.... Plus why shoot a 1.4 at f4 to assess Because you cant shoot any of the other lenses at f1.4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.