assertion: all 50mm lenses are equal in performance at f/5,6 at the m8

[drstefanlenz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hello,

 

there are five (5) 50mm M-lenses which can be used with the m8, starting with aperture 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.5 and 2.8. from the MTF-curves it seems to me that all are about equal in their performance at ap. 5.6. maybe even almost at f/4. the new summarit 2.5, like stated in some threads here, is really a great choice, well, like all.

 

it think one cannot differentiate between pictures taking for example with the 1.4/50mm asph at f/5.6 and the noctilux at f/5.6 and so on (double-blind-study).

 

what do you think?

 

regards

 

stefan

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I think you are wrong. To take the extremes, the 2.8 draws totally differently from the Noctilux - at all apertures. MTF curves are but a limited indication of the qualities of a lens. For one thing, they are two dimensional and give no information about the way the lens renders three-dimensional objects.

[cme4brain]

hello,

 

there are five (5) 50mm M-lenses which can be used with the m8, starting with aperture 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.5 and 2.8. from the MTF-curves it seems to me that all are about equal in their performance at ap. 5.6. maybe even almost at f/4. the new summarit 2.5, like stated in some threads here, is really a great choice, well, like all.

 

it think one cannot differentiate between pictures taking for example with the 1.4/50mm asph at f/5.6 and the noctilux at f/5.6 and so on (double-blind-study).

 

what do you think?

 

regards

 

stefan

 

MTF curves do not tell all of a lens (however when you compare any other non-leica glass to leica all the Leica nuts use the data for non-objective comparisons), and bokeh cannot be measured on a graph; there are apparent "looks" from each lens. However, that being said, barring the artsy-fartsy stuff of bokeh and whatnot of the artistic types, I would tend to think in your direction, for most pictures taken with this quality of lenses at this aperture. I also insert that this idea works when you compare Leica, Voigt, and Zeiss glass as well- 51+% of most persons IMHO, even professionals, for routine work-related/high quality amateur photography with the M8 could not tell which lens was used.

 

What an interesting question for this forum. I await the heated responses stating that all those dollars spent on their favorite lens has GOT to make that lens better than another lens!

[tom0511]

Also even at same f-stop the OOF areas look really different. I once compared Noctilux, to summilux to Cron and you can clearly see the difference.

[jaapv]

MTF curves do not tell all of a lens (however when you compare any other non-leica glass to leica all the Leica nuts use the data for non-objective comparisons), and bokeh cannot be measured on a graph; there are apparent "looks" from each lens. However, that being said, barring the artsy-fartsy stuff of bokeh and whatnot of the artistic types, I would tend to think in your direction, for most pictures taken with this quality of lenses at this aperture. I also insert that this idea works when you compare Leica, Voigt, and Zeiss glass as well- 51+% of most persons IMHO, even professionals, for routine work-related/high quality amateur photography with the M8 could not tell which lens was used.

 

What an interesting question for this forum. I await the heated responses stating that all those dollars spent on their favorite lens has GOT to make that lens better than another lens!

 

In a way you are right. If you discard everything outside the plane of focus, all lenses of comparable quality will produce similar sharpness in a sense of contrast transmission/linepairs/mm. And the apparent depth of the plane of focus (if the mathematicians will forgive me this contradiction) that increases to the eye with smaller apertures will make this observation more valid at say f 11. But still, then, to anybody with a grain of photographic observation, there will be clear differences in the way the different images look. The out of focus areas have as much of an impact as the sharp ones, the contrast gradients are different, the differences in microcontrast even give a different rendering of structures in the sharp areas, the three dimensional geometric distortion will be different and bokeh is not artsy-farty but a very real part of the photograph.

I'd happily do a double-blind test in this respect - but on prints, not on a computer screen.

[luigi bertolotti]

I have 1,4 and 2,0 of similar age... they ARE different at all common stops, indeed, except for sharpness on the focus plane... even color balancing is something different, and the OOF is noticeable different even on a "rough" jpg on PC. At the moment, there is surely a superposition issue 2,5-2,8 (but the 2,8 is collapsible... a sort of "old style look" that has some appeal....). If I had to BUY one NOW, for M8, I think that I would find difficult just to chose between 2 and 2,5... for the 2,5 has a very good price... 1,4 and 2,5 are rather "far" and the Nocti stands by itself...

[drstefanlenz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

interesting answers so far. sure it was from a technical point of view, like take a pic at infinity with f/5.6. with focus at like 1 meter i asssume there will be some difference and understanding why might render a lot of insight

[Shootist]

I have a new 50 Summicron and a new 50 Summilux and in my opinion the 50 Lux is far better at all apertures. At Least from where I'm looking.

Not that the Cron is bad, I just like the looks of the images I get from the Lux better.

Right now the 50 cron is mounted on the camera.

Each lens has it's strong point and draws different.

[drstefanlenz]

well, this would indicate mtf-meassurements are a bit futile, i suppose. i wonder what difference there should be when physics is the same except some millimeters of glas in the way of light

[luigi bertolotti]

well, this would indicate mtf-meassurements are a bit futile, i suppose. i wonder what difference there should be when physics is the same except some millimeters of glas in the way of light

 

Agree, MTF, expecially for modern lenses, show "always good" and do not say much about the real character of the lens... taht for me is a lot dependent on the kind of glass in itself.