Photozone

[Photoskeptic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, Photozone is the gold standard for lens testing. Before I buy any lens for my Nikon I always check Photozone first. It's great that they are now finally testing some M lenses.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ACB]

I was surprised by the amount of focus shift with the 50mm. I used to have this lens, and although I no longer have it, I don't ever remember focus shift being an issue. Is this a well known problem? I've not heard or seen much discusion on this with the 50 f2, unlike some other lenses.

ACB

[lct]

Welcome to the forum.

Very slight focus shift around f/4 in my experience.

Has never bothered me in 30+ years with my 11819 and 11826 Summicrons.

11826 at f/4 and f/5.6 here with the M240's rangefinder.

http://tinyurl.com/mocsdy4

http://tinyurl.com/lnccn85

[ACB]

Thank you lct for taking and posting these. Real world pictures give a much better idea of performance than lab tests.

[tobey bilek]

Image comparometer photographs a studio setup or test chart or a picture on a wall. Properly lighted none of these will produce flare.

 

They do go outside and do some common subjects so you get some idea of bokeh . I try to look at this and Photozone for a complete picture.

[mirekti]

I always thogut Leica lenses were standard for optical quallity, and @Photozone I must admit I don't understand how come 35's resolution comes so low in comparison to Canon's 24-70 II for example. The edges seem to be horifying compared to Canon zoom.

 

So, where is the catch here? On the paper resolution values seem to be terible, but on the other hand Leica 35mm photos look great

[skuromis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, where is the catch here? On the paper resolution values seem to be terible, but on the other hand Leica 35mm photos look great

That one lens is better than the other, doesn't mean that the other is a bad lens. Could it be, that Canon indeed managed to produce something exceptional?

[Freedolin]

So, where is the catch here?

 

I guess you're comparing the raw LW/PH numbers. This is invalid if different test cameras are involved.

 

LW/PH means line widths per picture height, the latter being in pixels. So, the maximum LW/PH figures scale with sensor resolution. The problem is, however, that these values depend on many variables, like the sensor structure, the strength of the anti-aliasing filter, the raw converter and thus demosaic algorithm used and lots of other things. So, there is no easy or simple relation between the resolution figures measured with two different cameras.

 

The reviews we publish are only comparable within one test system. We try to emphasize this wherever we can. If you still want to compare reviews of different systems based on our results, you can roughly do so by the scale marks we use (poor to excellent rating). The MTF charts in our reviews are always divided into 5 sections on the Y-axis, matching those ratings. So, don't look at the pure numbers, look at the ratings instead.

 

Apart from that: yes, the Canon 24-70/2.8 L II is a heck of a lens.

 

-- Markus

-- photozone.de