Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?

[Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com>]

Of course I was talking about apertures.
You compared the 50 at f1.4 to the 35 at f2.
The additional depth of field at f2 is bound to make your pictures look
different. In fact my old 50 'lux is known to be "soft" at f1.4 and to
improve in resolution as it is stopped down to f5.6 or f8. This is not a
"quality defect", but rather an individual lens signature that is prized by
some (e.g. for portrait use).

The 35 is also much more forgiving of minor errors in focusing than are
longer lenses. I suspect this focus leeway is what leads people who become
accustomed to the 35 as their normal lens to find longer lenses (usually 90
mm) to be of lower quality. Yes, our pictures may be of lower quality, but
whether it is due to the lens or our skill remains a moot point.

My own experience is that longer lenses are almost always capable of higher
resolution and less distortion than wider lenses at the same aperture.
(I don't yet have a 35 ASPH).

In any case, as you suggest, it's up to us to figure out what we want the
images to look like and then to learn enough about our equipment to make
those images.

I would respectfully suggest that you either compare both lenses at F2 (and
remember to do so at the same magnification by moving closer with the 35) or
to try turning the aperture ring on the 50 'lux to 4. That will preserve the
depth of field you see in your 35mm images. You'll probably still see
differences, but they'll be more directly related to your legitimate concern
about whether your two lenses are capable of producing pleasing results.

Mike Quinn

 Matt Morgan wrote:
> Why not? I don't know, which is why I'm asking the questions. My perception,
> maybe wrongly, is that this is all about the superior quality of Leica glass
> and the quality of the image it produces. I didn't know that there are
> different levels of quality based on the speed of the lens. If this is true,
> I might have made different choices. Unless you are just talking about
> f-stops and not maximum apertures.
> 

In response to Mike Quinn's
>> Why compare 1.4 to 2?
>> Did you really expect them to be comparable?
>> Did you compare the same scenes?
>> If you shoot both at 1.4 I think you'll prefer the 50mm 'lux.