Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Luggers, I've noted that Pop Photo's tests often show that the "better" Japanese lenses often beat the Leica lenses, e.g. the Canon 35mm f/1.4 vs the Asperic 35mm Summilux f/1.4. We Luggers, and other more objective judges, do not agree. I'd like to take a stab at explaining why this is so. Pop Phot tests lenses based on their flat field capability. If you take pictures of distant landscapes or brick walls with the lens wide open, this makes sense. Most of us don't, and Leica knows it. Leica lenses have considerable field curvature, unless Leica doesn't want it there, e.g. the 100mm F/2.8 Elmarit R Macro (Pop Phot raved about it.) Allowing in a little field curvature means that they can correct for other things that we notice more, like spherical abberation, coma, or lateral chromatic abberation, or a host of other optical nasties that translate to soft images. It's hard to believe that the Canon 35mm f/1.4 is better wide open than the 35mm Summilux f/1.4. The Summilux can hang it's rear element as close to the focal plane as it likes, the Canon can't. This restriction cannot make for a sharper lens. Assuming both lenses were designed to deliver maximum performance, cost no object, the Leica lens, with fewer design restrictions, has got to be better. In practice, you might never see it, as hand holding is is one heck of an irregular soft focus inducer! Now, Canon *knows* that they have to shine in the Pop Photo tests to sell expensive lenses, so they design for flat fields. I'll go with Leica. Tom