[Leica] Re:Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone else

[drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)]

Len,

>>It's surprising how good the old glass is though.<<

It's fun and easy to compare lenses on a digital body (and with a D700
all the way out to the corners of designed coverage). I have three
50/1.4 Nikkors. The oldest is converted AI with a scalloped focusing
ring. It's very sharp -- at least as sharp as the 50/1.4 AFD. My hunch
it that the older lens would be more prone to flare, though I haven't
tested that. OOF areas look different in all three lenses. The 50 AI is
currently my favorite. It focuses more smoothly than the 50/1.4 AIS and
IMO has better bokeh than the 50/1.4 AFD. It also is the best looking of
the three. Plus I like using Classic lenses. :-)  

The lens that really surprised me was the 100/2.8E. I can't tell any
difference between it and the 90/2.8 R that I converted to F mount, and
it's a little bit shocking. The 100E isn't much bigger than a 50/1.4. I
never used it much. It felt like a toy and I assumed it performed like
one. I bought it used for $25 a couple of years ago. I keep doing tests
comparing the 100E and 90R because my gut says the 100E can't be that
good. I want it to perform like crap, but it won't!

Another lens that surprised me is a 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor. Years ago I hand
picked it from 3 samples I tested (film). I dropped it shortly after I
bought it. The outer focusing ring bent. (Something similar happened to
my 35/1.4 ASPH M, but Sherry Krauter magically restored it to like-new).
I assumed the 24 Nikkor was ruined. I put it in a junk drawer. I
recently tested it for fun and I can't find any problems, optically.
Focusing still binds at one point. I'm anxious to compare its
performance to my 28/2.8 Elmarit R that is currently being repaired. 

So much has been written over the years about different lenses. I wonder
just how much is factual. I believe in a few generalities. I believe
Leica lenses are the standard by with all other lenses should be
measured. Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not from
Missouri, but still, I need to see something before I really believe it.


Now more pixels just means more peeping, and I think I'm about peeped
out! OTOH, it's nice to be able to see for myself, without having to
develop and print (which also introduces more variables). One time I bad
mouthed a lens. It turns out the lens was fine, but my enlarger was out
of alignment. When I bought a Zig-align all my lenses improved. I wonder
if buying a new computer will have similar results. :-)

BTW, I glued 2 Nikkor rear caps together in order to attach two lenses.
With a third on the body I can carry 3 lenses easily. The 45P Nikkor and
100/2.8 together are lighter than the 90/2.8 R, and they take up about
the same volume. The auto dust removal features in new digital bodies
makes swapping lenses more practical. I don't find myself swabbing the
sensor so often. 

DaveR