DavidBM Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · David at phillipreeve.net reviews Batis 25mm f/2 Distagon | |
Makten wrote:
No, sorry. It's only my own experience. Having only owned a few modern aspherics though, all of them have had this "property" or what to call it. Maybe the Leica 28/2 ASPH was an exception, but that lens is extremely expensive.
My guess is that aspherical glass cannot be ground or molded to the same surface smoothness tolerances as a spherical lens, and if that's true, it's not too strange that they can't give the same resolution or sharpness.
I think I've seen this in direct comparisons between the Batis 25 and the Loxia 21 (which I don't own), but I'm not gonna search it out.
Anyway! The Batis is a fantastic lens with very few flaws. Lower "crispness" is not one of them, since it will probably almost never make a real difference. But you can see it, as well as in some other aspherical lenses.
Edit: And to answer your previous question: The Batis 25 is perfect for urban landscapes in low light! The performance at f/2 is stunning. Haven't tried it for astro though, so I don't really know about coma. ...Show more →
Both the Loxia 21 and a Batis 25 have aspherical elements. And the crispest normal lens I know personally (the cv APO-Lanthar 2/65) does too. As does the Otus, likely the overall crispest. As do the runners up. Longer lenses have less need of aspherics, though more need of APD or LD type glass. That's why the b135 and Classic APO Sonnar don't have aspherics. It seems like 85mm is where the cutoff is for how useful aspherics are. Otus 85 has them, Milvus not. Otus 85 is a touch crisper at wider apertures (it's also a bit more APO but that's nothing to do with aspheres, I think). But Milvus has no onionskin bokeh, which is the only slight downside of aspherics I know (except perhaps that they require more precision in installation).
|