35 vs 50 lens sharpness

[leica1215]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned 35/2 , 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 all are the latest version, my personal feeling is 35/1.4 has sharper image than 50/1.4, higher resolution.

 

the 50/1.4 is harder to get in focused, less sharp compare to 35/1.4, is it true? or maybe I have had defect copy?

 

thanks for all inputs

[luigi bertolotti]

Sharpness in absolute terms ought to be evaluated with proper optical targets... for lenses of the new generation I tend to think there are very little differences; in your case, to verify if your 50 has some problem, it would be better to make a well made comparision with some OLD lens that, though still good, has by sure an inferior sharpness.... To say, for example, an old Summilux.... Or a 1st type Summicron at "next to" apertures ( a Summilux asph at 1.4 MUST be sharper than a Summicron of the '50s/'60 at f2.... If not there's some issue in the Summilux...)

[Carduelis]

On a recent holiday to the Benelux countries, it was the first time I used my 35 mm ASPH (pre FLE) and 50 mm ASPH (FLE) lenses together with my Leica M 240 and I would say they performed well with excellent edge to edge sharpness and wonderful rendering. I would rate them equally. Perhaps, the added depth of field makes your 35 mm lens appear sharper.

 

The biggest surprise was that (at relatively high magnification in LightRoom) they both appeared to eclipse my 24 mm Elmar f3.8 lens in sharpness particularly towards the edges.

[lct]

...the 50/1.4 is harder to get in focused, less sharp compare to 35/1.4, is it true?...

As an user of both current 35/1.4 asph and 50/1.4 asph lenses, i don't think so. Seems like your 50/1.4 asph needs some calibration.

[Jeff S]

 

the 50/1.4 is harder to get in focused...

 

Do a proper test, using tripod and LV (since user profile shows you own M240).

 

Sharpness is a vague term…ironically.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Difficult to find wides with sharp corners. Standard lenses are generally sharper there. As for curent 35/1.4 asph and 50/1.4 asph Leica lenses, both are contrasty and offer high resolution but corners and edges are softer at fast apertures as usual, especially the 35 at f/1.4. Seems like the OP's 50/1.4 asph needs some calibration.

[leica1215]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

thanks for all reply, my personal feeling is that my 50 is less sharp than my 35, of course it is without any hard core comparison. when us 50s, even it is under preciser in focused picture when I crop them to have closer look, it is definitely less clear than my 35s.

 

thanks

[gvaliquette]

 

...

 

The biggest surprise was that (at relatively high magnification in LightRoom) they both appeared to eclipse my 24 mm Elmar f3.8 lens in sharpness particularly towards the edges.

 

Are you sure your Elmar 24mm/f3.8 is OK???

 

I don't have the Summilux 50mm/f1.4 ASPH, but I do have the Summilux 35mm/f1.4 ASPH FLE and my Elmar is AT LEAST as sharp as the Summilux.

 

Guy

[Al_OOF]

It seems strange also to me...

I have the Elmar 24 asph and the Summilux 35 pre FLE and in my experience it at least equals the 35 in sharpness. Pherhaps a little different but I could not say that it is less sharp.

[lct]

I do have the Summilux 35mm/f1.4 ASPH FLE and my Elmar is AT LEAST as sharp as the Summilux...

Not in corners and borders in my experience. At f/4, my Summilux 35 FLE blowns the Elmar 24/3.8 away there, which is not surprising given the wider focal lengh of the latter. The 24/1.4 asph could compete with the 35 FLE though i've been told but i have no experience with the former.

[dugby]

I have owned 35/2 , 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 all are the latest version, my personal feeling is 35/1.4 has sharper image than 50/1.4, higher resolution.

 

the 50/1.4 is harder to get in focused, less sharp compare to 35/1.4, is it true? or maybe I have had defect copy?

 

thanks for all inputs

 

I agree with you.

 

I have a M (Type 240) with

a) Summilux-M ASPH 35mm (FLE)

Summilux-M ASPH 50mm (FLE)

 

and do find the following with the M 240

 

1) at f1.4 the 35mm consistently is easier to focus than f1.4 on the 50mm

2) the 35mm consistently is sharper across the whole image compared to the 50mm

3) with the high resoltion of the M 240, I am finding for hand-held shots that 3x 1/focal length is the preferred shutter speeds

ie for the 50mm, > than 1/150 sec is desirable

ie for the 35mm, > than 1/100 sec is preferred

 

Whilst I enjoy the 50mm FLE and have some great shots from it, I find it a "harder to work with" lens compared to the "easy to work with" 35mm FLE.

 

I find my 50mm requires patience, care in stabilising myself and stabilising my breathing and stabilising my hands to get a sharp shot. The slightest backwards/forewards movement of the 240 throws the image out of focus....

 

I am finding the 35mm FLE to be the better all-round lens, ie I can get faster shots with more consistent sharp images with less effort than the 50mm.

[250swb]

thanks for all reply, my personal feeling is that my 50 is less sharp than my 35, of course it is without any hard core comparison. when us 50s, even it is under preciser in focused picture when I crop them to have closer look, it is definitely less clear than my 35s.

 

thanks

 

If you aren't going to try a proper tripod test your results will remain potentially flawed.

 

At the same aperture and same shutter speeds handheld a wide angle lenses is always going to provide a higher proportion of sharper pictures than a longer lens. If you always move the camera even a little bit while making the exposure (and some people do) then all the images from the wider lens will appear sharper. This is because the angle to the subject of any camera movement is increased with a longer lens. So the first thing to remove from the equation is the photographer, usefully replaced by a device with three legs and no opinions.

 

Steve

[lct]

Longer focal length implies more magnification hence more motion blur risk and less DoF hence more misfocusing risk at the same aperture and shutter speed folks. Aside from OIS, optical qualities cannot change anything to that. So better use a wide lens than a telephoto if we have neither steady hands nor a tripod. Do not crop too much though othewise you will have the feeling that your pics are too soft again.

Edit: Did not see Steve's post above sorry. I agree 100%.