wide M lenses on SL

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 2.0 ASPH Summicron  original 

24 3.8  

28 2.8 ASPH original

 

How do these M lenses work on SL in the corners ?  They are fine on my M9

[thighslapper]

'fine on the M' presumably means 'acceptable' ...... as none of these are perfect 

 

I did extensive tests on multiple lenses and posted the results in late nov/early dec 2015 but cannot locate the posts as they changed the forum after that and my 'content' doesn't go that far back. Maybe some other clever person can find the posts .....

 

Here is the table of outcomes ...... which is all I can find for now ......

 

Bear in mind we are talking about a small area of the actual corners only ...... and in architectural of landscape work you are hardly ever going to be using them close up or wide open ..... and if you are trying to isolate a central subject using them wide open then who cares about the corners anyway. The older 28/2 and 35/2 are presumably similar designs and are poor on the SL wide open and close up, but perk up at smaller apertures. Most other lenses will work fine in everyday use and similar to on the M. Other users have found the latest summilux M wides probably better on the SL than M.

 

I'll try and find the original post ... the example pics tell more than my opinion .....

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[steppenw0lf]

I cannot doubt your results, as I did not measure anything in similar detail.

But my personal impression of the WATE used on the SL or M246 is much more positive.

Especially also in close up pictures.

But I confess I use often f 8 or even f 11.  (because I need the dof.)

If you look at the MTF diagrams for the WATE, 8 or 11 is best, but even the wider openings are not as bad as you suggested in your list.

 

And also for the 2.8/28 I cannot see weeknesses of that dimension. It is a lens of high quality (already the older one (pre-asph) and even more the asph.)

 

I would suggest that any user interested in the latest details goes to the Reid Reviews paysite and studies the many excellent examples together with the technical philosophy behind the tests in all depth.

 

For me the M lenses are "fine" because they work almost identically than on a M240. Which is far beyond my ability to "clearly see" any difference of importance to my subjects. (The hot spots of my photos typically are not placed near corners or concentrated near the border of the frame.) 

Sean Reids analysis (during maybe the last two years) has made me come to that conclusion.  (To the conclusion that the SL is the best non-M camera for these lenses).

[Jeff S]

 

I did extensive tests on multiple lenses and posted the results in late nov/early dec 2015 but cannot locate the posts as they changed the forum after that and my 'content' doesn't go that far back. Maybe some other clever person can find the posts .....

 

 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252842-m-lens-performance-on-the-sl/?p=2929734

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

The Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH used with its lens profile returned results identical to what it returned on my M-P typ 240. 

 

I've since traded it in part for a WATE, which I find to be an exceptional performer throughout its range on the SL, again with results almost indistinguishable from what it did on my M-P and now does on my M-D.