Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I just ran a test pitting the following lenses against each other at all apertures on 'real world subjects' (ie some stuff in my back garden, using Tri-X in Xtol 1:1). Not Erwin-quality testing, obviously, but... LTM Russar 20/5.6 LTM Canon 28/2.8 M Summilux 35/1.4 Sigma FD 24/2.8 Canon FD 28/2.8 Canon FD 35/2 I used a tripod, but in other respects I wanted this to be like the way I shoot day to day. The reason was that three of the lenses were new and I wanted to check them out. Easily the winners were the Canon and Leica 35s, though at f8 all of the lenses with the possible exception of the Russar were very sharp (the Russar doesn't do well at the edges, but then no big surprise there). At f8 and 5.6 respectively I could not detect a difference between the Canon and the Leica lenses, in sharpness at least. There is certainly a difference in character, however, which I am at a loss to describe. The old Canon 28 is surprisingly good, too. What is absolutely clear from my testing is that the great limiting factor in the sharpness of my pix is my technique. ALL of the lenses easily outperform my ability hold the camera steady at speeds lower than 1/250. I just bought a scanner. When the transparency hood arrives I'll post the results to my up and coming website.