Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] ZM 50/2 planar ? now 50/1.4 asph
From: kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour)
Date: Wed Dec 12 04:47:27 2007
References: <20071211124642.75A571F50B1@ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com>

On Dec 11, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Marty Deveney wrote:

>> I understand also what Marty has said re a theoretical advantage  
>> for the Summicron at minimum distances (and add that the little  
>> current Elmar 2.8 50 is king here). I can
>> only say that I have never identified this in my photographs. I am  
>> completely at a loss regarding Marty's comment on more remaining  
>> aberrations in the 1.4. Again I have
>> never seen this and I would expect the 1.4 to be superior to the  
>> Summicron, when BOTH at f2. It may be that Marty is referring to  
>> wide open performance.
>
> The Summilux 50/1.4 asph is the best corrected 50mm f1.4 lens  
> currently available.  It is probably the best all-round 50mm lens  
> available, given the usual criteria.  I like it because it is very  
> resistant to flare and has a fantastically flat field.  It is,  
> however, not perfect.  All lenses are loaded with aberrations,  
> including very well corrected ones, including this one.
>
> At distances under 1.5-2 m the Summilux asph needs to be stopped  
> down to f4 or so to equal the 50/2 Summicron and related lenses in a  
> number of ways.  Note that MTF charts rarely are provided with a  
> distance measurement -  or with the number of samples measured  
> provided.  I have used Geoff's 50 asph a very little bit (for one  
> afternoon and about 5 rolls of film) and another one extensively (25  
> rolls in a variety of circumstances, including some on a test  
> bench).  I'm not sure how representative those lenses are.  Leica's  
> QA is very good, so I'll assume these are 'average' samples.  It is  
> also interesting that I have never been able to determine if Leica's  
> or Erwin Puts' MTF charts are measured or calculated theoretically  
> (I've never even checked if Erwin just 'reissues' the ones that  
> Leica publishes).  This is a significant difference and needs to be  
> clarified if these are to be interpreted properly.  Irrespective of  
> any of this, the comments and MTF charts need to be proper!
> ly interpreted.  None of this matters if you need f1.4.
>
> Erwin, who, for once, I agree with, says: "The close up performance  
> of the Summicron is definitely better than that of the new Summilux  
> and if you do not need the high speed, it still has its virtues"  
> with which I agree.  As I said, I can still clearly see aberrations  
> in images from the 50/1.4 asph at close range and they are more  
> apparent than with the Summicron or other similar lenses.  All my  
> shots with a 50 seem to be done either close up or wide open.  As  
> such, for what I do, I'd prefer to work with two lenses - one faster  
> and one that is better corrected close-up - so I have a Noctilux and  
> a Hexanon-M 50/2.  I'm also interested in trying the new 50 Summarit.
>
> I don't like the newest 50/2.8 - it has several odd characteristics,  
> including strange out-of-focus rendition and odd representation of  
> straight lines when used wide open.  But it is very well corrected  
> close-up.  I also find its collapsibility somewhat exasperating - it  
> was always collapsed when I needed it.

a problem with the M8... but it can be used with the M8...just be sure  
that it doesn't collapse...


a couple rubber bands does the trick...


is there something better to ensure no collapse at the wrong time?

(hopefully this won't get caught in the spamfilter)

:-)

Steve



>
>
> These types of distinctions are minimal - I should stress that my  
> main issue with Leicaphiles gushing over the 50/1.4 asph is that it  
> is not free of aberrations, even though it is very well corrected.   
> Most photogaphers - even careful ones who are interested in lenses,  
> don't know what oblique spherical aberration looks like in  
> photographs.  That doesn't mean that it is not there, but it also  
> does not mean that it matters.  It bothers me, but that won't make  
> my photos any better.  My approach suits me and I'd encourage anyone  
> else to find something that suits them.  Just don't fall for hype -  
> nothing is perfect.
>
> Marty
>
>
> Gallery:
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/main.php?g2_itemId=7617
>
> Most people can only judge of things by the experiences of ordinary  
> life, but phenomena outside the scope of this are really quite  
> numerous.
>        Shen Kuo - 'Dream Pool Essays'
>
>
> -- 
> 10 Great Gift Ideas- Take a Look!
> http://mail.shopping.com/?linkin_id=8033174
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from freakscene at weirdness.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] ZM 50/2 planar ? now 50/1.4 asph)