RalphJ Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #8 · Considering moving from Leica M8 to Canon 5D mkII - questions on lenses | |
patashnik wrote: For those of you owning the Canon lenses above, how would you say the wide open performance is? I'm mostly concerned with the 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 - are they close to their optimum at those speeds? Or do they "require" stopping down?
I don't know of any 1.0, 1.2, or 1.4 retrofocus (i.e., non-rangefinder) lenses that are super-close to their optimum when wide open in the sense that a photographer would choose to shoot (for example) a building facade with them wide open.
But the 35L and 85L do perform very well wide open, especially when the focus plane is isolated from the foreground and background.
That's why these "How sharp is x lens when wide-open?" threads always elicit a bunch of impressive photos of arm's-length subjects with a smooth, out-of-focus background and not, say, a photo of a building facade across the street: the more out of focus a large portion of the picture is, the sharper the in-focus portion will look.
That's fine with me, as I don't buy fast primes to shoot architecture wide-open at infinity. I use them to shoot subjects maybe 1-4 metres away.
I've never seen performance curves for Leica's best lenses; I shoot an M3 with a 50 'cron and while it's great wide-open, I know I'll maximize performance if I stop down 1-3 stops. So too it is with the 35L, the 85L, and just about every other lens (the 200/2 is probably the best performer wide open, but it's not small or cheap and it's not suitable for a lot of around-the-house shooting situations).
Castleman's charts pretty much reflect my experience: the 35L and 85L start out very good - one would never call the wide-open results "unuseable" - and improve measurably (if not earth-shatteringly) when stopped down 1 and preferably 2 stops:
For the 35mm:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm
and for the 85mm:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm
(Note in the latter that the lp/mm chart starts at 60 and goes up to 90, so the 2.0 and 2.8 improvements are exaggerated. If it was a 0-90 chart, the performance curve would look much flatter.)
Bottom line: I don't know if Canon's best can match Leica's best when both are shot wide-open. But the versatility of range, precise framing, and autofocus capabilities of the SLR lenses have to be taken into consideration in addition to pure wide-open performance.
P.S. You can use the charts at the-digital-picture to compare a lens' performance wide-open against itself stopped down (and of course you can compare it to other lenses). This chart shows the 35L wide open and, by mousing over, the same lens at 2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
You can change apertures and lenses as desired using the top menus on the linked page.
You can also, with both the 35L and the 85L, put one setting on "2.8" and the other on 5.6 or 8.0 and see how close to optimum the lens already is by 2.8. Both lenses hit their stride at a pretty large aperture.
|