Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dear Luggers: The recent inquiry about Photodo led me to review the MTF comparisons for M lenses at that site. http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html Now I'm not the kind of guy who goes around poking hornets' nests with a stick, but I was struck by one aspect of this ranking. From this list I have formed an impression that the 35/1.4 ASPH is one of the shining stars of the M lineup. Yet photodo actually has it listed with the lowest of the MTF grades. I grant you, no single number can capture the nuances of real world optical performance. So is this merely an example of the inadequacy of such rankings, or are the other lenses just a little bit "better" (sharper?) in ways that have no real world significance? Or have I been worshiping a false idol? For many years I have used a Nikkor 35/1.4, and that lens photodo rates at 3.9 (3.8 for the Leica M 35/1.4). My experience with the Nikkor has been that it's not that great at 1.4, but improves dramatically with a little stopping down. (Wide open performance does seem to be a major Leica difference.) Perhaps the ASPH lens performance is weighted to the wide open (where one would be using the lens), and the photodo average neglects this aspect. Regards, Phil Stiles