Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] vs Zeiss/ 16 X 20s
From: Dominique PELLISSIER <>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:38:41 +0200

>>I caught the tail end of a Zeiss seminar ( quite a creature ;-) in
>Minneapolis the other day. They had on display a number of Ektar 25 prints
>made from Carl Zeiss lenses. The prints were all incredibly sharp.
>>What was of interest were the following statements in a
>>handout describing the gear involved: 1.) " One hundred
>>twenty to 130 lppm is necessary to make a high quality 16 X 20 print". 2.)
>Describing their Planar 50 f1.4, set at f8; "This is the highest resolution
>( 200 lppm across the entire field ) lens available in the world for
>general photography".
>>Questions are as follows: 1.) What Leica lenses would meet the 120-130
>lppm criteria? 2.) How does the new R-50 f1.4 compare to the Zeiss 50 f1.4?
> 3.) Does the RTSIII  vacuum back ( flatter film )enhance the sharpness of
>a lens significantly? 
>>Tom D.
>I can only give the results of the tests made in 1987 by Chasseur d'images
>for the 1.4/50 lenses.
>The summilux R (old type) is better than the planar at full stop and up to
>2.8. The summilux has field curvature ; the planar is...plane.From f4, the
>quality is the same for both of the lenses: excellent.
>If, according to Leica Camera, the new summilux is better than the old
>type,it is obvious than the Leica lens is superior to the Zeiss one.
>Dominique Pellissier
PS : The test made by Zeiss is stupid. A 1.4/50 lens has been designed to
be used at full aperture and not at f8.