Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don, I must take up the cudgel again here ;-) Firstly I agree (as an owner) that the 4.5 21 is a great lens. Compact, sharp, accurate and all of the rest. Now despite my trepidation at possibly angering whichever deity oversees gear heads, I have to comment on your statements here. I do follow your interpretation of the MTF diagrams. Have you tried the 2.8 version? Do you think that there is a demonstrable difference in the areas that you mention? Let's assume best case and only consider M8 files. By that I mean optical deficiencies will be most evident. But now if you are both handholding the camera and zone focusing, I really think that any theoretical differences are likely to be more than outweighed by those other factors. You said it best in your second sentence 'it's smaller, lighter and costs less' I would add that it costs a lot less than new Leica glass, but then Leica have no slow M wides currently. I'm hoping that may change at Photokina (purely my wishful thinking and speculation). Also, shooting into the sun or nearly so, it is noticeably inferior to the latest Leica asph glass. Specifically it exhibits veiling glare much more readily. I won't post the boring test roll I shot in my front yard. Some samples below for anyone interested. These are all downsized of course, and are from M7 film scans. I haven't shot this lens on the M8 as yet. Shooting into the sun. They can never be sharp enough or well corrected enough for me. Still I quite like the effect in this one. Also, since this was Neopan in dilute Xtol, I guess that may have influenced the highlights too?? http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/92958185 http://tinyurl.com/ynu6nc Less adverse light http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/92939176 http://tinyurl.com/2855sf Conversion from Provia 400X, at sunrise http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/93331630 http://tinyurl.com/ysmy65 This one is posted just for sample purposes. Not my favourite from the area. This is the entire frame within the slide mount. Note the horizon is ruler straight (amazingly I didn't get the horizon tilted either!) and also the excellent lack of vignetting. This is stopped down, I think around f11. http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/94721480 http://tinyurl.com/2arypu Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/e http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [Leica] Another ZM lens on the horizon Akhil, The 4.5 is somewhat superior even at f8 out to the edges; look especially at the disconnected curve for the 2.8 with the sagital changing radically. Plus, it is smaller, costs less, and has less distortion. Usually, when you are using a lens this wide shutter speed is not a big problem with a rangefinder camera so you will be shooting at F4 down anyway. With a rangefinder I will typically set the lens at F5.6 and set a hyperfocal for infinity down to 4 feet or so. Truly a P&S at that point. On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Akhil Lal <alal@duke.poly.edu> wrote: > Interesting comment on the 21/45 vs. 2.8. I had been thinking of getting > the 2.8 until I saw your post. > > Just curious, other than distortion, what can the 21/4.5 do that the 2.8 > cannot do equally well at the same aperture? The MTF curves, at 5.6 look > very good for both lenses. > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Don Dory wrote: > > > Clayton, > > The 21 4.5 has been in the works for three or so years as I have played > with > > prototypes for that long. It reason for existence is smaller size, > better > > performance especially at the edges, and some nostalgia for the original > > groundbreaking 21 Biogon. For almost all users of a 21 the 4.5 is a > better > > choice; only those who need limited DOF or who have to have a 2.5 stop > > faster lens will opt for the 2.8 version. > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM, R. Clayton McKee <leica@rcmckee.com> > > wrote: > > -- Don don.dory@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information