Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]While I, like most of you, await Erwin's report on the new 50/1.4-R lens, I can say, based on testing four of them (yes four), that none of them were particularly sharp at 1.4 or 2.0. I have owned Canon and Nikon 50's that were unquestionably sharper in the center of the field. BUT, the Leica lenses were very consistent and had several important positive attributes. They were quite sharp at the edges of the field, better than the Nikon and Canon lenses I have had. They were also more contrasty at 1.4 than anything I have seen from Nikon or Canon. The color balance was superb and the light fall-off at the edges was quite low, lower than Canon if not Nikon. So all in all, the lens appears to be a great performer, but if center of field sharpness wide open is your main thing, you may be slightly less than thrilled. I don't mean the above to be in any way definitive, but I did put four new Leica 50's through some tests with slide film, tripod, and 15x loupe. John McLeod - ---------- From: TEAShea@aol.com To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: Was: [Leica] Noctilux Now: Summilux Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:05:23 EDT << I don't mean this to sound caustic, but why? The current M Summilux is a fine lens. Its hard to imagine any replacement adding much, except perhaps to the price. >> Dan, it is certainly a legitimate question that you ask. Although I have never used one, the 50 1.4 has a reputation (based upon the various published test reports) as being soft at 1.4 and 2.0. I note, however that the reports note that it is very good at the smaller apertures. Of course I realize that sharpness is not everything, but for this particular focal length and aperture, I would like the sharpest lens possible. Tom Shea