There are a couple of things that I want from a landscape lens:
1) Limited field curvature
2) Parallel sagittal and tangential lines (i.e. consistent blur & micro contrast regardless of direction)
3) High micro contrast in the fine detail (i.e 40 lp/mm).
The 35-70 @ 35mm doesn't qualify because of 2 & 3. The 35 Lux because of 1) and the 35/2 Distagon ZE because of 1, 2 & 3.
Luka ... I'm with you on #2 very much, especially at 10 & 20 ... maybe a bit more lenient @ 40. Could you expand on #1 a bit re: mtf.
So what would be your top 3 choices for a FF EF mount (adaptable/convertible okay) for a 35mm landscape lens that most closely meet your criteria ... i.e. no rangefinder glass. AND, which of your criteria would you be willing to compromise on in favor of the other two?
AhamB wrote:
For traditional landscapes I'm sure that those flaws you mention are easily detectable with the Contax, especially for you. I'm pretty sure that I've seen them too. I love the rendering of the lens with anything a little bit closer (trees and stuff), it's stunning. Maybe quite similar to the Z* 35/2 in a way.
Yeah. The problem with MTF charts is that they only give you a very partial impression and only at one focusing distance (infinity for Zeiss & Leica). And even so I have lenses that I love for landscape work that violate one or more of the criteria that I mentioned. And vice-versa - I have lenses that should in theory be perfect for landscapes but that have something in the rendering that I don't quite like.
Ultimately there's no substitute for using a lens for a longer time and forming an opinion.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Denoir your mtf graphic for the zm 35 seems to be shifted up if you look at the 80.
True, the alignment is somewhat sloppy but you can look at the values on the chart. Actually it's worse than that - it's not correctly scaled (too stretched in the vertical direction). Still, it's not by much and you can get the values by looking at the actual chart.
denoir wrote:
There are a couple of things that I want from a landscape lens:
1) Limited field curvature
2) Parallel sagittal and tangential lines (i.e. consistent blur & micro contrast regardless of direction)
3) High micro contrast in the fine detail (i.e 40 lp/mm).
The 35-70 @ 35mm doesn't qualify because of 2 & 3. The 35 Lux because of 1) and the 35/2 Distagon ZE because of 1, 2 & 3.
Having extensively used the C/Y 35-70, I can say that it exhibits very high micro contrast. At the 35mm setting, it's two deficiencies are simple distortion and vignetting before F8. It wipes the floor as compared to the majority of fixed 35's.
So what would be your top 3 choices for a FF EF mount (adaptable/convertible okay) for a 35mm landscape lens that meet your criteria ... i.e. no rangefinder glass.
None that I'm afraid. The 35/2 Biogon is the only 35mm lens that I've used and that I've found to be great for landscapes.
If I had to pick one for FF EF mount, I'd probably pick the new Distagon 35/1.4 ZE. You pay in field curvature but it does pretty well with the fine detail. As for the 35/2 ZE, I mean on an absolute scale it's very good for landscapes. It's just not as brilliant as the 21 Distagon or the 35 Biogon.
By the way, following the same principle of expanding an MTF chart across a 24x36 frame, here are the three current Zeiss lenses that are in production today:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Denoir: Would you say the C/Y 28mm F2.8 then is a better lens than the 35mm for Landscape photography?
It seems a bit odd that a "Distagon" would be so poor for landscapes.
I'll jump in as I owned two copies of this particular lens. First copy was unbelievably tack sharp wide open in the center with super high micro contrast but even stopped down to F11, the extreme corners were never tack sharp. This copy also exhibited some pretty severe CA - some of the worst I have seen.
Second copy behaved much differently with more uniform performance across the frame and less CA but not quite as sharp in the center wide open as the first copy. As such, it was better for landscape use as the extreme corners did sharpen up nicely but the lens seemed a bit "boring" to me as compared to the first copy. I have never seen two copies of the same lens behave so dramatically different than these two copies of the CY 28. Odd. Both were also MM though there was quite a range between the serial numbers.
Hmm. I don't see the relevancy of showing all these test charts and MTF's of ultra expensive RANGEFINDER LENSES when the OP is shopping for an SLR lens. Plenty of great 35mm SLR lenses for landscape uses! Geez.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hmm. I don't see the relevancy of showing all these test charts and MTF's of ultra expensive RANGEFINDER LENSES when the OP is shopping for an SLR lens. Plenty of great 35mm SLR lenses for landscape uses! Geez.
You don't?
The 35 Lux illustrated example was a response to Kent's question about field curvature. It's general in nature and is in no way limited to that particular lens. And the reason why I picked that particular lens is because those images are from an old post I made a couple of months ago in the Leica thread. In short, I had them ready and available.
The other test charts are for the 35/2 ZE and 35/1.4 ZE, both SLR lenses. The Biogon (which by the way costs the same as a 35/2 ZE and less than the 35/1.4 ZE) MTFs are provided as an example of what I consider to be an excellent landscape lens. It serves to illustrate the 'issues' I have with the other lenses.
Any chance you've got some Leica R 35mm mtf's handy (or a link) ?
I'm looking at getting the 24L TS-E II, so with it being so close to 28, I'm thinking about switching out my 28's for a "better" 35 than my current 35-70/3.4 ... so my quest is to figure out what lens I want for a 24 & 35 combo.
For educational puposes the rangefinder glass was fine ... it illustrated a point, not taken as a recommendation.
My first 35mm camera was a rangefinder Yashica w/ fixed 50/1.4, so I've got a 'sweet spot' for them ... but in the digital era it is very NOT LIKELY I'll be going down that path given the limited offerings and corrsponding $$$. Otherwise, I think the closer registration distance of a rangefinder provides some optical advantages (& disadvantages, i.e. more prone to vignetting) for lens design.
Any chance you've got some Leica R 35mm mtf's handy (or a link) ?
No, I'm afraid I don't Kent. Leica only has its current lenses on their site.
I'm looking at getting the 24L TS-E II, so with it being so close to 28, I'm thinking about switching out my 28's for a "better" 35 than my current 35-70/3.4 ... so my quest is to figure out what lens I want for a 24 & 35 combo.
I've used the 24 TS-E only briefly but as far as I could tell, it's extremely good.
That's fine, thanks anyway ... this gives me a baseline for comparison re: my current 35-70 and the 35/2, as well as the M for reference of what to expect as beyond the upper limit of what can be expected for SLR glass.
I remember (over a year ago) seeing a couple of Leica landscapes ( 28mm & 35mm) that caught my attention as to the "clarity" of them. The comment was something about Leica glass "lifting a veil". For budgetary & learning curve reasons, I dismissed the Leica as a possibilty back then, but took notice.
IIRC, I was most impressed by the 28, but if I'm going to retool to the 24L TS-E II, then the $$$ for a 28 doesn't make much sense, rather the 35. Of course, it was probably your M glass that caught my attention and my ignorance of Leica's nomenclature probably obscured that little fact ... but I'll still re-visit the Leica R camp for 35MM offerings. I'm hoping that something like a Summicron 35/2 E55 might provide a nice option to compare with the ZE35/2, etc..
RustyBug wrote:
but I'll still re-visit the Leica R camp for 35MM offerings. I'm hoping that something like a Summicron 35/2 E55 might provide a nice option to compare with the ZE35/2, etc..
We'll see.
As I said earlier, you will be very disappointed with the Leica R Summicron for landscape use IF you are expecting border and corner performance on FF. It's very weak. I do have the MTF's somewhere around here which I can post in a bit.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
As I said earlier, you will be very disappointed with the Leica R Summicron for landscape use IF you are expecting border and corner performance on FF. It's very weak. I do have the MTF's somewhere around here which I can post in a bit.
+1. I tried this lens on my A900. I sold it the day after.
