pdmphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #19 · 35mm side by side review posted | |
Nice work, but again the definition of "borders" seems to cloud the results. I've tried about half of the listed lenses and my corner results don't match these border results, so I'd be careful about interpretting the results from the "borders".
For instance, I'm a long time proponent of the Zuiko 35/2.8 (tested 3 copies), but also have the Leica 35/2.8 (second version, which is supposed to be optically identical to the tested third version). After using both for hundreds of landscape shots stopped down to f/5.6-11, there is no doubt the corners are consistently superior on the 35/2.8 Elmarit.
Because I really wanted a 35/2 lens, I have also tried the Zuiko 35/2 (3 copies - from silvernose to latest MC), and a Leica 35/2 - neither had as good corner resolution as the Leica 35/2.8, or even the Zuiko 35/2.8 - when stopped down. To get better speed I went to the Zeiss 35/1.4 (albeit in RolleI mount), and found the performance superb, except for the *very* corners which show some decline.
Besides the "borders" issue. I am at a loss to understand how these tests can be so different from my own real world tests. I'm sure it is a combination of factors, but I wonder if these tests are done at a distance considerably less than infinity? I've found some lenses do very well at distances close in, but progressively worse towards infinity. If that is the case than these tests are more close focus, than real world performance for the type of photography I do.
B Landau wrote:
With all the positive comments I have beeen reading about the ZF 35/2 I am surprised it did not fair somewhat better in your lab tests - particularly with regard to edge resolution.
The summicron 35/2 is no doubt a very good lens, but on my copy I do see noticeable resolution loss in the extreme most corner regions (when shooting at f/8). Having said that the edge resolution of non-corner regions is extremely good.
|
