Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 13, 2006 Share #41 Posted October 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Let's just drive in and see what happens.LOL Thanks Kurt that said a lot to me on the 75mm F2 . I do think R since i am versed in it better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH vs ASPH. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
georg Posted October 13, 2006 Share #42 Posted October 13, 2006 I just had the opportunitiy to make some DNGs with the new Tri. At 640ASA they had very little noise (absolutely different from what you see on the display) and were extremely sharp - for WA-fans this is the way to go! I will be happy with a 24 Asph. I also made 1:1 comparisons with the 2500€ Panasonic/Leica Digilux 3 with the 14-50 - the M8 was way superior - sharpness, noise - absolutely everything (with the 2,8/28Asph). I asked them about the battery-technology, both, charger and battery are from the german company Ansmann. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 13, 2006 Share #43 Posted October 13, 2006 I just had the opportunitiy to make some DNGs with the new Tri. At 640ASA they had very little noise (absolutely different from what you see on the display) and were extremely sharp - for WA-fans this is the way to go! I will be happy with a 24 Asph.I also made 1:1 comparisons with the 2500€ Panasonic/Leica Digilux 3 with the 14-50 - the M8 was way superior - sharpness, noise - absolutely everything (with the 2,8/28Asph). I asked them about the battery-technology, both, charger and battery are from the german company Ansmann. That may just cost me another lens:D :D Thanks George next time be a little negative, this costs me money. ROTFLMAO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted October 14, 2006 Share #44 Posted October 14, 2006 LCT, Thanks so much for your comparison shots. From them I can see clearly what you are talking about. I think I may have a different preference than you, but I agree on what the differences are in your photos. The ASPH background could be more distracting, but also perhaps more interesting. I agree in your example the the light colored OOF blob near the rose is a liability in the ASPH shot. Perhaps if I'd seen as many shots from both as you have I'd prefer the Pre-ASPH. Thanks again. Very informative. Best, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 14, 2006 Share #45 Posted October 14, 2006 ...the ASPH background could be more distracting, but also perhaps more interesting... Yes matter of taste of course, and of purposes as well, reason why i keep the 2 lenses that i like both. I had no ND filters when i did the test otherwise it would have shown that at f/1.4 the backgrounds of the 'lux asph look less distracting than at slower apertures so that its overal results at full aperture are better than those of the pre-asph version IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 14, 2006 Share #46 Posted October 14, 2006 Did you use the latest version (#11868) of the pre-asph 50/1.4, Lars?Comparing it to the 50/1.4 asph i find that the later is sharper from f/1.4 to f/4.0, mainly at f/1.4 where it is outstanding. But, in the same time, the OoF is sharper as well, which is quite visible at f/4 and f/5.6 on the R-D1 at least. The result is not as ugly as that of cheaper lenses of course but the backgrounds and foregrounds are too distracting for my taste where those of the 'lux pre-asph are pleasantly smoother. From f/8 to f/16, i don't see significant differences though. I did own the very last version, and in silver chrome, to boot! The lens was good -- after all it was on the books for 42 years -- but the Asph. is an entirely different game, and the more noticeable difference between sharp and unsharp does not bother me at all. After all the unsharp part has not deteriorated; it too has gotten sharper, only less so. And I took my first pictures with a 6X9 cm Zeiss folder with an uncoated Novar triplet ... No difference from f/8? Of course not. All the difference is in the handling of the peripheral rays. Stop down to f/64 and what do you have? A pinhole camera. The old fossil from the days of flashpowder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlm Posted October 14, 2006 Share #47 Posted October 14, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) popflash now has one less used 50/1.4 aspheric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 14, 2006 Share #48 Posted October 14, 2006 Make that 2 . i bought one this morning and a 75 f2 from Hk suppilies which has three left Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.