Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I got tired just reading this?I test lenses by going out and taking pictures with them. Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/> http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws <http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ <http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/> Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator <http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator> YNWA > On 05 Dec 2015, at 23:07, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> wrote: > > Which has more Resolution: Sony 28-70 or Leica 28-70? The question had > bothered me ever since I got the A7, when either lens would fit on the same > body... > > There are really good reasons to not care, including AF and Auto Diaphragm > operation of the Sony. But which would have would have better glass? > > > > My application is mostly travel photography. in which case things like > distortion issues, vignetting, color cast,, etc have a lesser value to me > than brute force net resolution. > > > > With a couple of 28-70 in hand I went a'testin. > > > > The Sony 28-70 F3.5-5.6 is the "kit" lens usually associated with the A7 > bodies. It is not expensive to buy on its own, and as part of the Kit, is > hard to turn away. > > The Leica 28-70 F3.5-4.5 Rom lens is the third model ( first was designed > and made by Sigma, and not considered a superb lens optically or > mechanically, second is the Sigma designed, Kyocera made lens, and the > third > is apparently a slightly modified Sigma design, modified by Leica, and > built > by Kyocera. Depending on what you read, the second and third or third only > have a different barrel. Again, depending, the third is a Leica designed > barrel and has modified optics. FYI, Kyocera is/was the company that > brought > back the Contax name.. The third version is the only one with factory ROM. > > > > Some will ask, well why not test the Leica 28-90 lens, the one with a > splendid reputation? Because I do not have access to one, and the price > point is too high for my interest! 35-70? Different range meaning that a > direct comparison is difficult, not available to me, but I am working on > accessibility... > > > > How did I test? > > A7 camera, 24MP, no IS. ( no, I do not own a 36MP camera so the test was > done with existing equipment) > > Tripod > > Delayed shutter release. no movement introduced errors > > Electronic first shutter.. no shutter slap > > RAW Files > > Manual focusing at 11.3x ( or whatever) magnification. LCD or eye level? > I > used the eye level. GG type focusing. No assist. > > Cheap Chinese adapter from R to NEX. cost me $12. Any questions or dissing > of this cheap adapter, go back to the price point. It is worth $12 to do a > test, Not $200 or more. > > Only the central area of each lens was tested in depth, spot check > examination of the corners had the same results. > > > > What was the control lens? > > 50 Summilux ASPH, probably the best lens in Leica's M portfolio, with the > possible exception of the 50 APO ASPH Cron ( which I have no access to). > > It was mounted using a Novoflex adapter. > > > > What Focal lengths were tested? 28, 50 and 70 mm > > What F stops? F4 and F8 > > > > How did I compare images? Raw files in LRcc, latest version, updated 24 > hours before. 1:1 > > > > What LR settings were used? None,. All set to basically un-touched, > neutral > > > > What was used as a test image? A section of the outdoor fence at my house. > > > It was made from cedar, is 44 years old, and has enough character to allow > minute comparisons of image quality. Bug holes, wood texture and all. > > Distance was about 15 feet. > > > > What ISO? ISO320 for all. > > > > Now that you have read all the caveats.. The results... > > > > The 50 ASPH Summilux is the best by a fraction. > > The Leica Zoom lens held its own, and was a CLOSE second. ( Surprise! The > Zoom was surprisingly good, especially when the design was done in the late > 90's by a company that was supposed to be second rate : Sigma. Proves you > should never believe everything you read, even if it is on the Internet!) > > The Sony lens was not bad, but not as good as the Leica lens. > > > > The differences were in the fine details, where Leica really did a better > job than the Sony. This was at all Focal lengths, all apertures. Center > and corners too. > > > > Define "better"? small details were obviously sharper and clearer in the > Leica at 1:1 in LR. Edges crisper.. Overall small detail contrast was > higher. > > Overall contrast and color were very close in all 3. > > > > Is it worth it to switch to the Leica if you have the Sony? YMMV. You > give > up AF, a big deal for many. You give up auto diaphragm, a big deal to me. > > The Leica lens is a bit longer, a bit more in diameter and a bit more > heavy. > > > The positive? You get better image quality... > > > > No, I did not test for CA, etc. This was an initial test to see if I > wanted > to go further... Which I will not. > > > > The difference in IQ was not enough to outweigh the negative user aspects > of > the Leica.. IMO. > > > > What might change my final decision? A sensor with more MP may NEED a > better lens. At 36MP? 43MP? 50MP? 64MP? > > I don't know, but there is a point where more resolution is needed than > the > Sony can deliver. > > > > But that is not in the budget for me for the foreseeable future... in which > case, I can worry about it then. > > > > Frank Filippone > > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information