lens wide open best

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a myth that fast Leica lenses are designed to be used wide open, it is total rubbish.

 

Even the latest 50mm Summilux gets better stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6, which means Leica didn't do a very good job of designing it specifically to be used wide open, if that were the case. I think what has been mangled in the translation is that the lens is still 'good enough' to be used wide open without worrying about image quality.

 

Steve

Actually the 280/4.0 APO-Telyt R system and APO Telyt R module lenses are designed to be best wide open. These are true diffraction-limited lenses.

[thighslapper]

I think this derives from a quote from Leica not that long ago that said their lenses were designed to be used wide open and that alteration of aperture was a tool to control DOF only.....

 

an element of marketing hype methinks..... although our good friend Mr Overgaard subscribes to this philosophy....

 

All I can say is that if you lived with a noctilux at 0.95 the world would look very strange indeed....

[250swb]

Actually the 280/4.0 APO-Telyt R system and APO Telyt R module lenses are designed to be best wide open. These are true diffraction-limited lenses.

 

Given the majority of lenses come into their own at f/4 - f/5.6 it is to be expected/hoped that Leica can design a 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt R to be at its 'best' wide open

 

Steve

[gyoung]

If its Nikon, stick to the 1.8/50, its always been miles better than the 1.4 which IMHO is too poor to be much use at 1.4 and not as good at 2 as the 1.8, pointless.

The same applies to the Olympus OM 1.4/50 I had once, the 1.8 lens was much better.

If you look at the tests of the fast 50s for reflex cameras on something like Photozone, you can see that the 1.4s (even Zeiss) have a lot of light falloff and resolution problems in the corners at full aperture.

Only for the rangefinder cameras (with simpler optical design) do you get 50s that are good at 1.4 etc, even Ken Rockwell reckons the OLD 50 Summilux better than anything Nikon or Canon ever made.

 

Gerry

[jaapv]

Given the majority of lenses come into their own at f/4 - f/5.6 it is to be expected/hoped that Leica can design a 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt R to be at its 'best' wide open

 

Steve

Well, they did - read Erwin Puts. Truly diffraction limited, i.e. at its best wide open. One of the very few lenses that is.

[mirekti]

Can anybody comment vignetting on the new 35mm lux wide open, please?

I found it on Steve Huff's review, but not the sample.

[AB007]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually the 280/4.0 APO-Telyt R system and APO Telyt R module lenses are designed to be best wide open. These are true diffraction-limited lenses.

 

Also the Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5.

 

I love the Nocti 50/.95 wide open too

[pgk]

FWIW to quote Puts from the Leica website download:

"The Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R is one of the very few lenses that performs

at its best already at full aperture and does not improve

on stopping down."

[AB007]

I believe it was the 180/2.8 APO Elmarit R and the APO Summicron R 180/2 lenses that also performs best wide open. Not sure if E. Puts stated about the APO Macro Elmarit 100/2.8 R.

[algrove]

E. Puts said that the 100/2.8 Macro Elmarit-M was his benchmark lens for a long time and during one test he said another lens bumped it from the top of his pile. Will research it to remember which lens bumped the 100/2.8.

 

It was the 2.8/180 APO Elmarit-R 1998 (Paragraph 6.11.6) in Leica Lens Compendium

[lct]

I've traded it in today for the Summilux 35mm FLE... As far as I can tell (used on Fuji X-E1): ... It's not that sharp wide open, so best (only?) usage for portrait...

I would check focussing on your Fuji cam if i were you. The 35/1.4 FLE is not as sharp as the 50/1.4 asph wide open but it is still too sharp to be used as a portrait lens on my M8.2. At least for shooting my mother in law (just kidding Mum) So much the better for my dear old 35/1.4 pre-asph which still shines there.

[MarkP]

 

A lot of our members swear by the Zeiss ZM 50mm F1.5 Sonnar Lens. I would love to have a try of one of these as from what I hear it gives a gorgeous old style look to B&W. Has anyone got any experience of this lens? - it would be great to hear you experiences with it.

 

Regards Paul Mac

 

 

The 1.5/50 ZM C-Sonnar is superb. Even more so for the price.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/187967-guitarist.htm

A brief search through the Forum will find much discussion on this lens.

 

It has a softer older style rendering when wide open but modern and razor sharp when closed down. I sent the lens back to Zeiss for optimisation for 1.5 (no cost to me other than one-way shipping to Germany and 9 day turnaround - Leica are you listening) and have no significant problems with focus shift on the M9 & Monochrom. Popflash photo describe the situation well:

 

all production since 1997 is focus optimized at f/1.5 for film based cameras to a FFD distance at 27.86mm.

 

this adjustment works well for film based cameras, but causes a noticeable shift on digital rangefinder cameras - since their FFD is longer than film-based M-mount cameras (basically they do not meet the standard M-mount spec). When the optimized lenses are tested with digital rangefinder cameras at a close focus distance of 0.9m and at f/1.5, they front focus by about 2cm

 

because of the differences between film and digital rangefinder cameras - which we cannot control - it is impossible to have a focus optimized C Sonnar for both systems.

 

for customers who want their lens adjusted for digital rangefinder cameras, Zeiss Germany have set the FFD to a distance of 27.90. This provides good results on digital cameras, but will cause a focus shift on film cameras for the reasons mentioned above

 

If an individual customer wishes to have their C Sonnar optimized for use with a digital camera, the customer can send the lens into Zeiss Germany for adjustment.

 

 

 

I also have a 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH FLE and 1.0/50 Noctilux E60.

They are all different - I consider the Sonnar to be different, not inferior.

 

l

[01af]

Popflash photo describe the situation well:

 

"... but causes a noticeable shift on digital rangefinder cameras—since their FFD is longer than film-based M-mount cameras (basically they do not meet the standard M-mount spec). [...] because of the differences between film and digital rangefinder cameras—which we cannot control—it is impossible to have a focus-optimized C-Sonnar for both systems."

 

That's just nonsense.

[MarkP]

.

Why?

Seriously I'm interested to learn.

 

Regardless, the Sonnar performs flawlessly for me on the M9

[TomB_tx]

I believe at one time Puts commented on differences between the Leica and Zeiss treatment of the film surface - one as if it bulged in, the other out. Perhaps Zeiss does need to re-calibrate for digital due to their treatment. But that has nothing to do with focus shift.

[01af]

Why? Seriously I'm interested to learn.

Because Leica M film bodies and Leica M digital bodies don't have different flange distances, as simple as that. The guys at popflash.photo just made this story up.

 

By the way—if there really was a difference of 0.04 mm in the flange distances then a 50 mm lens would miss the intended focus distance of 0.9 m by 9.3 mm, not 2 cm.

[wattsy]

The 35/1.4 FLE is not as sharp as the 50/1.4 asph wide open

 

Interesting. It's not perfectly straightforward comparing the sharpness of lenses of differing focal length but my experience of both these lenses (more than one of each) is that the 35 Summilux has the edge over the 50 when used at full aperture (especially in the closer range).

[jankap]

Can anybody comment vignetting on the new 35mm lux wide open, please?

I found it on Steve Huff's review, but not the sample.

 

Look in the Leica technical data:

Leica Camera AG - Fotografie - LEICA SUMMILUX-M 1:1,4/35mm ASPH.

At 1.4 the vignetting mark is at 20%, that means 2 f-stops (= 25%).

At 2.8 the mark is 40%, that means 1 f-stop (= 50%).

But that is the worst case situation, namely in the extreme corners of the picture.

 

The sensor adds somewhat still. In the camera software (or later on in Photoshop) there can be a correction by amplification of the electric signals at the cost of adding noise.

Jan

[lct]

Interesting. It's not perfectly straightforward comparing the sharpness of lenses of differing focal length but my experience of both these lenses (more than one of each) is that the 35 Summilux has the edge over the 50 when used at full aperture (especially in the closer range).

Interesting indeed. Never did side by side comparos but i don't share the same feeling, on my M8.2 at least. Both sharp lenses anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

For me both are bitingly sharp. I will have to make a personal test-same everything at say 2M to see how they compare assuming I can nail the focus on both. Just happen to wonder if the MM would bring out more differences than say an M9?