Mandler lens resolution

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, J.Nordvik said:

Or did you mean Digital Artifacts? in that case I was referring to false colors.

It is impossible to reproduce the colours we see. 'Accuracy' is often about perception and is influenced by many factors. Even when copying artworks you really need to know the end display conditions in order to adjust appropriately. IMO most decent digital cameras produce acceptable results these days.

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Could you please elaborate?

perhaps he means moire

[J.Nordvik]

No. I mean false colors.

[J.Nordvik]

 

[jaapv]

You mean the  fine structures. of the windows? That is moiré/colour aliasing, and has basically nothing to do with the lens and little with the sensor. It is caused by the Bayer demosaicing algorithm of the posts-processing program on fine structures and varies with the program used. It is easily corrected, but you can also defocus slightly. AA-filtered sensors will show it less.

[jaapv]

 

[J.Nordvik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"defocus slightly" = a less sharp lens.

[jaapv]

Indeed. Or a thumbprint on the rear element. Although, to throw away lens quality for something that may occur - and is easy to correct- in 1-5% of your shots seems a bit silly.

[luigi bertolotti]

11 hours ago, tedd said:

...and I get new M's throughout my life, will the Mandler glass still be "good" enough or will it be a blurry mess? ...

Thanks!

No good lens will give you a blurry mess in the next 50 years... provided you treat it with normal care. My Summilux from 1962 was good on my  M4, on my M8, and very good on my M240; my Alpine Elmar from 1936 was just decent on my IIIc.. on my M8.. and still it is on M240.

[davidmknoble]

In reply to the OP, I still use some Mandler lenses on my M10M which has the highest pixel count yet in an M. I actually enjoyed using the 75 Summilux, wide open and the Elmarit 90, wide open.  I think they look great.  There may be a time when a lens just doesn’t look as good on a digital camera, but I think even older lenses look good - even though the contrast needs boosted some in post.

[pgk]

A lens which delivers a great print today will still do so in the future, unless that is that our vision and visual interpretive abilities become somehow enhanced, which I doubt very much.

[otto.f]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

enhanced

OP worried about deteriorating 😄 Could be of course, the older we get the less image quality we experience. And then blame it on the better sensors. We see that with Trump too, the older he gets the more he externalizes. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by otto.f

[Stein K S]

I am no tech`ie at all... and you have got all the answers you could ask for from very competence members. All I wanted was to underline that I own exactly the same 3 lenses along with also some newer once. And as you also state; those three really could make a set for life with their realy beautiful rendering/drawing!

I use them on an M10 and no bit coding.

 

PS: Would be interesting to hear in the future if you manage to stick to only those 😉 (if so; I would be inspired!)

Edited May 4, 2020 by Stein K S

[lct]

Not sure what 200% magnification may bring but at 100% magnification a Mandler lens will not show less resolution but less acutance than a modern lens. Just to take an example, pixel peepers looking for micro details will be happier with a Leica 35/2 asph, a ZM 35/2.8 or a CV 35/2 than with a Leica 35/2 v1 to v4 from this viewpoint. Even a 7art 35/2 will look sharper this way. I mean at fast apertures but differences are still visible at medium aperture depending on the lens.

Edited May 4, 2020 by lct