28mm Summilux software correction acceptable ? ( hypothetical )

[FrozenInTime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olympus and Panasonic make much use of profile software correction to keep their micro43 lenses small and down to budget.

At the high end of the market, Hasselblad also make digital specific wide lenses such as the HCD 4/28

 

So Hypothetically:

 

Would a smaller cheaper 28mm f/1.4 Summilux that has minimal viewfinder intrusion but requires significant software barrel correction be acceptable now that digital M cameras are so prevalent .

Or would a larger, more costly lens with traditional levels of distortion, but blocked off more the viewfinder than the Summicron, be preferred along with an EVF or external OVF.

 

I'm thinking the uses I would put such a lens to : narrow dof. and low light use would make software profile correction acceptable.

Retaining use of the internal rangefinder makes the tradeoff more than acceptable; as would choosing a lower speed lens when maximim correction and resolution was required.

 

Anyone for or against ?

[rramesh]

Would a smaller cheaper 28mm f/1.4 Summilux that has minimal viewfinder intrusion but requires significant software barrel correction be acceptable now that digital M cameras are so prevalent .?

 

I don't think that Leica lens design is about compromises. If they can't better the 28 f/2 or design a superlative 28 f/1.4, it will not make the light of day.

[jaapv]

No matter whether we are for or against, such a lens will never be considered, let alone built, by Leica.

[FrozenInTime]

Perhaps the compromise has already been made on other lenses:

The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar has just over 3% distortion at the wide end : I'm sure most digital users click profile correction in Lightroom to fix it as a matter of course.

 

The Olympus 12mm has 5% native distortion pulled into 0.7% : that's probably more than I would expect Leica to target.

 

The 28mm Summicron shows better than 1% so is good on film and digital.

Is 3% correction on a faster 28mm so unthinkable ?

[lct]

By Leica yes but other makers might be interested perhaps, although i can't imagine Zeiss or CV being glad to be regarded like cuke bottle makers.

[tobey bilek]

No matter whether we are for or against, such a lens will never be considered, let alone built, by Leica.

 

For sure they can, but will not. #1 it loses resolution when correction is applied. #2 it would not be compatible with older cameras. 3 You can fix it with your computer with all kinds of software. #4 Distortion varies with focus distance. #5 Buy a Nikon. Nikon JPEGS can be set to correct in camera, unfortunately not raw files. #6 Leica lenses are the best so there is no reason to mess with them. #7 Peter Garbe will never do it.

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No matter whether we are for or against, such a lens will never be considered, let alone built, by Leica.

 

 

When there's an Apo 50mm at twice the price of a superb 50 summilux, and a 24/1.4, it's hard to understand how you can be so confident. Why do you feel there will never be a 28/1.4? Many like a 50/28 combo. Surely if both were summilux......?

Pete

[lct]

Jaap did not say that. Please read the OP's question again.

[pgk]

Would a smaller cheaper 28mm f/1.4 Summilux that has minimal viewfinder intrusion but requires significant software barrel correction be acceptable... .. Anyone for or against ?

In camera software correction is a two edged sword. It could be used as you describe, to correct for distortion deficiencies, but doing so would modify the image file irrevocably, and would risk later software corrections (for example post processing adjustments for horizontal or vertical misalignment, or converging vertical adjustments) resulting in diminished image quality in some areas of the image. I can't see a manufacturer such as Leica purposely producing a significantly distorting lens requiring such adjustment to be built into the camera because it just doesn't make any sense for them to produce a lens which could all too easily lead to criticism of lens design and optical performance. (Am I correct in thinking that the other manufacturers who do this have lenses with far less 'legacy' camera use potential? - ie such a lens could all too easily be used on an older camera where its characteristics would be all too visible).

[andybarton]

I can't see Leica making any lens that requires software to correct anomalies. That's not what they do.

 

They wouldn't make an M lens that couldn't be used on film Ms

[gyoung]

But if the tri-Elmar gives 3% distortion then they are 'content' to produce such a thing, and just leave the correction to third party software. Correction is only 'required' if the user wants it for the subject matter though, better that than imposed without the option.

The Fuji 18mm was found by a reviewer (dpreview?) to give weird distortions presumably because they haven't got the software correction right.

 

Gerry

[Stealth3kpl]

Jaap did not say that. Please read the OP's question again.

 

LOL, I see! . What an unusual question! That way of thinking just goes against all that Leica stands for i.e. optical excellence.

Pete

[lct]

I had to read the question twice as well. The distortion of the Mate is 0.75% at 28mm according to J.M. Sepulchre but even 3% would mean that Leica could not do better then, not that they compromised quality for sale price needless to say.