Does the M11 improve the uniformity, but degrade the relative sharpness, of the 35mm Summilux FLE wide open?

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or have they secretly improved the 35m Summilux formula?  Or maybe it's a curvature of field thing?

 

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!

(on an M9)

https://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-pique,5007.html

 (on an M11)

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-summilux-m-35mm-f-1-4-asph-lens-review-35877/performance

[lct]

The first chart looks optimistic at f/1.4. Not that i dislike the FLE, by far, but i would not say that it is that close to f/5.6 at full aperture. 

[onasj]

Agree... it's the testing method inconsistency, not the camera.

[jrp]

I normally use an SL camera, but am always surprised by how good the 35mm Summilux FLE is, on it.  For sure, the 35mm APO Summicron and the SL 35mm Summicron will smoke it, and the 35mm Zeiss equivalent will be better, but bigger, but the question is, does the M11 improve the performance of current M lenses materially? The sensor does seem pretty good, but better than the Sony 60Mp  sensors?  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm notocing some differences on some lenses. I don't own a 35mm 'lux though. My MATE is better on the M11 at the edges than my M10R. (It was also better on the M10M than the R. My v1 28mm ASPH is slightly improved on the edges. 50mm 'lux appears to be the same. WATE appears about the same.

None of this is through rigorous testing. Just quick comparison shots.

Gordon

[padam]

https://jacktaka.com/voigtlander-35mm-f2-apo
From this real-world comparison, the FLE is visibly behind the 35 APO-Lanthar VM, so I assume the differences would remain fairly consistent.

For sure, an M11 would improve over what an SL does with a 35mm M lens.