Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Alexey Merz: >> Probably no one, given that the pix are shown at only 700x900 >> or so ... Anthony Atlieski: >A lot of people have tried thus far. About 80% have been wrong. My point is that your test is not a valid one. For the reasons cited below you'd fully expect 50/50 results. Any divergence is likely due to chance or improper control. >> ... given that the enlargements are different ... >Both were scanned at the same resolution and reduced to the same extent. Then the photos were taken from different locations. In other words, you used different targets. What's more, they were taken at different times (compare the sky in the two shots), meaning that the subjects were lit differently. Big no-no for a comparison. Perhaps run through the minilab on different days, by different operators, etc. >> What I *can* tell you is that I have photos taken inside >> St. Chappelle that, when enlarged to a *much* greater extent >> than yours (16x20 Fuji Crystal Archive prints from Kodachrome >> 64 slides), retain *far* more detail than your enlarged insets. My original scans, displayed at 100% size, are the equivalent of 36x24 enlargements. They correspond to 53 lp/mm. B.S.! 1 - the scan resolutions given by the mfr's are *interpolated* resolutions. 2 - the resolutions that you invite *comparison* of are - as I said - of far lower resolution than that (700x900). 3 - even if you *are* getting a true 53 lp/mm, remember that Velvia does better than 80 lp/mm, and that the 50 Summicron-M exceeds that resolution (cite E. Puts). 4 - What were your shutter speeds? 5 - What were the apertures used? >I'm unable to see any difference between the two photographs at that resolution. >When I get my LS-2000 back (if they ever fix it), I'll try again, as it scans >with multiple passes and pushes the resolution a bit. However, I suspect that >any differences between them are beyond the resolving power of the scanner >(that is, they are both doing better than 53 lp/mm). I would guess not. I would guess that due to camera movement, etc., that you are getting *less* than 50 lp/mm. Were the cameras on big, heavy, well-damped tripods? >>In short, the lenses were probably not the limiting factors in >>your photos. That does not mean that the lenses are not a limiting >>factor in other peoples' photos. >I never said anything about the lenses being limiting factors. >It was just an experiment. No. An experiment without control(s) is uninterpretable; hence it is not an experiment. The use of different targets alone (Notre Dame at different times of day, under different lighting conditions) disqulaifies your "experiment". >I was amazed by the quality of the T5 lens, and I thought I'd try >this experiment. I agree that the T5 lens is amazing for its price. It is certainly of professional quality and more than adequate for many uses. BUT... >>And yes, the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH is noticably better >>than all of the above, WHEN used carefully. > As on a test bench, you mean? That's probably true. No, on a tripod shooting test targets (newspaper, immobile landscapes [cliffs], etc.). Films run through a dip/dunk line in single batches. Examined blind at 15-30X on a Wild (Leica) binocular research microscope. The differences are there, but are much more apparent with the lenses used wide open. A huge difference is that the Yaschica/Zeiss lens is rather flare prone, even with a makeshift shade. The Leica lens is astonishingly flare resistant. Your 'experiment' would not reveal this critical real-world difference. >But I wonder how often that difference is visible in real-world photography. >I _hope_ the Leica lenses are better, because I paid a lot more for them. They are. Maybe not enough to justify the price difference (<10:1) but that's for each user to decide. I don't want to sell either one; I am not going to take the 35 Summilux ASPH out on the Gulf of Maine in a small (14') research boat. That's what the T5 (and the old Ricoh fitted with used Pentax SMC lenses) are for. >>So what is your point? >I just thought it would be interesting to compare the two and discuss the >apparent lack of any clear differences. If you're not a critical user of your equipment, the differences are "apparently" not there. If you are a critical user, they are there. If you're not, you can either choose not to care (a perfectly valid choice), or you can blather on about how there's no 'real' difference between a $200 P/S and a $2000 lens. For myself, I value the 35 Summilux ASPH for its speed, its incredible contrast and apparent sharpness at f/1.4-2.8, its excellent flare suppression, and its compactness (compared to SLR 35/2 and 35/1.4 eqivalents). These are real, usable benefits shared by no other other lens in its focal length. If you shoot exclusively hand held at f/4-f/8, you may never see these benefits. But the photos of St. Chappelle mentioned above were shot on Kodachrome 64, available light, handheld, at f/1.4. I blew them up to 16X20 and they could easily withstand enlargement to 20X24. The only other lens in the world that *might* have done as well is the Canon 35/1.4 Aspheric L; it's almost as pricy as the Leica, and twice the size. - -Alexey ps- one more thing: Before anyone starts the annoying "Isn't that lens on the GR1 just GREAT?" thread, I'd point out that although it's very respectable closed down to f/4-f/8, at f/2.8 (wide open) it doesn't have a lot of contrast. My old Pentax K mount 28 was better. I suspect that the 28 Elmarit-M would blow it out of the sky. Erwin?