jaapv Posted December 31, 2017 Share #121 Posted December 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is what the "superior" or "better" lens of my otherwise excellent LX100 does before computerized tweakings. No problem for 600 euros or even a bit more for a compact camera like this but don't ask me to spend more on any M or TL lens designed this way, it will never happen. P1020242_c1si.jpg That is only half your lens , you removed the distortion correction.- now go and unscrew the rear element from another lens and post that result. Unfortunately you have ruled out all native TL and SL lenses for yourself... And the Q and the X series, and all PanaLeica compacts... , in fact, about any high-end camera/lens by any brand designed recently. You'll have to stick with M gear... Woops! Those have digital vignetting corrections... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Best Prime lens for APS-C. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted December 31, 2017 Share #122 Posted December 31, 2017 [...] now go and unscrew the rear element from another lens and post that result. Why would i butcher a noble lens this way? I like Scott's word above about respect. I don't mind if others are happy with "superior" coke bottles, really, i wish freedom for everybody . Just kidding but we'll have to agree to disagree here which does not happen that often lately by the way . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolfy Posted December 31, 2017 Share #123 Posted December 31, 2017 When I first heard about digital correction of lenses I too felt a bit abused and fooled. There is so much consensus that Leica lenses are usually among the best lenses in the world that digital correction sounds about choking at first as it destroys the idea of pure optical performance praised by many. It killed a bit of the aura to me, at first. After some time I realized that computing is part of our time and all manufacturer use it today. Also computing systems and correction algorythms improve considerably faster than anything else and get updates. There are also optical optimisations that are very hard (or very costly) to correct where these issues can be corrected so easily by software today. ie : distorsion and color fringing. My opinion now is that I prefer a company like Leica to put efforts on clarity and pure sharpness optically an Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolfy Posted December 31, 2017 Share #124 Posted December 31, 2017 even if distorsion and fringing is corrected by aoftware afterwards. My opinion is based on what I saw on my display, for example with the 11-23mm which is by far the sharpest uwa lens I have seen (despite having owned 21mm super elmar asph M or 18mm asph M or 21mm summilux f1.4 asph M in the past). And doing so at such low cost...I just say thank you (Sorry for double post but I did an error on my smartphone and it seems I cannot edit) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 31, 2017 Share #125 Posted December 31, 2017 Why would i butcher a noble lens this way? [...] Because you are butchering your D-109 by removing part of the integrated correction. To be fair you should do the same to another lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 31, 2017 Share #126 Posted December 31, 2017 I really wonder how good the Summilux 35 asph would be if Leica could remove that wavy plane of focus digitally. The rest of the lens would improve as well, as the optical correction could be shifted into other aberrations. Unfortunately the M system cannot do this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 31, 2017 Share #127 Posted December 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really wonder how good the Summilux 35 asph would be if Leica could remove that wavy plane of focus digitally. The rest of the lens would improve as well, as the optical correction could be shifted into other aberrations. Unfortunately the M system cannot do this. Fortunately the M system does not try to disguise this great lens in something less. As you recall it yourself, M users are interested in M lenses for their character which would necessarily change with those tweakings. Thanks no thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynoldsyoung Posted December 31, 2017 Share #128 Posted December 31, 2017 Loving my 35mm f1.4 TL on the CL. Helping me get over missing my ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynoldsyoung Posted December 31, 2017 Share #129 Posted December 31, 2017 Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 31, 2017 Share #130 Posted December 31, 2017 Fortunately the M system does not try to disguise this great lens in something less. As you recall it yourself, M users are interested in M lenses for their character which would necessarily change with those tweakings. Thanks no thanks. I recall quite a few posts complaining about the uneven focus plane on this lens... It has nothing to do with user interest, the only reason is lack of electronic communication between lens and body, otherwise hybrid lenses would have been introduced in this system as well for quality enhancement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 31, 2017 Share #131 Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) Lets face it ...... if Leica , who have traditionally been regarded as one of the best producers of optics, have decided that software correction of some aberrations is preferable to more complex optical correction then there is no point arguing about it as the battle is well and truly lost. This is the present and the future ..... much as digital sensors replaced film. The output from the sensor undergoes a huge amount of amplification and processing both in and outside the camera before the image appears on a bit of paper, but that is no longer regarded as cheating or abnormal manipulation. This is just another part of the chain of image processing in modern photography. Edited December 31, 2017 by thighslapper 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 31, 2017 Share #132 Posted December 31, 2017 Electronic communication to fix a faulty design or to try to reach some boring perfection? Not for me all that but it's not tomorrow that we'll see those software corrections on M lenses thanks to their use on film bodies as well. Long Live Film! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 31, 2017 Share #133 Posted December 31, 2017 <sigh>You really don't get it, do you? Not to fix a faulty design, but integrated in an optimized design... The optical part is designed to correct what glass can correct best, the digital part to correct what digital does best, together they arrive at the design goal. One cannot exist without the other. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 31, 2017 Share #134 Posted December 31, 2017 <sigh>You really don't get it, do you? Not to fix a faulty design, but integrated in an optimized design... The optical part is designed to correct what glass can correct best, the digital part to correct what digital does best, together they arrive at the design goal. One cannot exist without the other. I must be too stupid to comprehend those things i guess... What i get perfectly is that i don't spend little fortunes for the best lenses in the world to get those "optimizations". Now as long as M lenses are still on the market i will be protected i guess so no problem for me. Well not really as i still miss a small fast wide for my CL. Nothing new under the sun as i missed it 13 years ago for my R-D1 yet... Life is hard for optimists disliking optimizations. I love this word . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted August 22, 2018 Share #135 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) Having bought the 35 1.4 Summilux TL only on Monday, I have discovered that the metadata shown in Lightroom cites exposure and f-number (which it cannot for M lenses mounted via adapter). A nice bonus. Edited August 22, 2018 by microview Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 22, 2018 Share #136 Posted August 22, 2018 I must be too stupid to comprehend those things i guess... What i get perfectly is that i don't spend little fortunes for the best lenses in the world to get those "optimizations". Now as long as M lenses are still on the market i will be protected i guess so no problem for me. Well not really as i still miss a small fast wide for my CL. Nothing new under the sun as i missed it 13 years ago for my R-D1 yet... Life is hard for optimists disliking optimizations. I love this word .The problem is that the purely optical M lenses aren’t the best lenses in the world any more Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 22, 2018 Share #137 Posted August 22, 2018 The problem is that the purely optical M lenses aren’t the best lenses in the world any more Some "optimized" lenses can be compact and cheaper like my good 7artisans 35/2, other ones can be better and bulkier like lenses i've no interest in but compact and better i've never seen so far. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 22, 2018 Share #138 Posted August 22, 2018 Hmmm... Not much size difference between the Q 28 and the Summicron 28, considering the Q 28 also houses an AF mechanism. I didn't know that the 7artisans lenses had any digital optimisation on the M10, which isn't equipped for it anyway. A bit puzzled why it gets dragged into the discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 23, 2018 Share #139 Posted August 23, 2018 I have no experience with this Q 28 but it is a built-in lens with good part of the bulk hidden by the body i suspect. I have nothing against that but the 7a 35/2 is compact, interchangeable, "optimized" and has 6-bit coding by comparison. Works fine on the CL so i guess on the M10 as well but it shows a lot of distortion on film or when 6-bit coding is disabled. All the charm of optimization so to speak but good little lens otherwise. Aside from flare when strong light sources are outside the frame, i use it with pleasure when i want a smaller and lighter 35/2 than my Summicron asph. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted August 23, 2018 Share #140 Posted August 23, 2018 yep. https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/ Lets face it ...... if Leica , who have traditionally been regarded as one of the best producers of optics, have decided that software correction of some aberrations is preferable to more complex optical correction then there is no point arguing about it as the battle is well and truly lost. This is the present and the future ..... much as digital sensors replaced film. The output from the sensor undergoes a huge amount of amplification and processing both in and outside the camera before the image appears on a bit of paper, but that is no longer regarded as cheating or abnormal manipulation. This is just another part of the chain of image processing in modern photography. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.