Upload & Sell: Off
the e43/46 summilux have heavy field curvature that will cause massively unsharp corners on APS-c. on a full frame camera they come back up to acceptable levels. the field curvature is even apparent in the 10 and 20 lp/mm graphs, the latter dropping below 60% at it's lowest point.
yeah, i've seen this on some of the other older fast leica m's. the 35 lux pre-asph actually starts to improve again at the very extreme aps-c corner.
I dont think Leica have ever envisioned any of their 50mm lenses and landscape lenses other than the new 50 APO ASPH and the original Elmar. if you want to shoot a scene with everything in focus on an RF, I think the 50 planar is actually your best bet if your goal is consistency over absolute sharpness. to be fair, I dont know what happens if you actually focus it for center sharpness, because it seems like Zeiss measured it in such a way that they maximized the area under the mtf curves rather than hit the absolute highest...Show more →
i actually have this covered already with my contax g 45, which is actually sharper over the aps-c frame then the zm 50/2 (according to zeiss i didn't do a head to head comparison when i tried out the zm). i don't particularly like either of those lenses for anything other than landscape or trying to maximize 3D pop though – too harsh for my taste (not really a zeiss guy). i'd really like to find a nice compact ~50mm that has nice character for portraits but is sharp across the frame by f/11. i have a few of these in slr sizes, it seems more elusive in rangefinder land.
as far as SLR vs RF lenses on the m240 goes, I think the only reason we havent seen this is because, as Roger Cicala said in his M9 vs M240 with 50 Lux ASPH article, there seems to be an issue with setting the thing up for the imacon tests. Which infuriates me =/ Like some of you, I wanted to see those results (well, at least the ones for 50mm lenses) VERY badly. Honestly I cant understand why Sony cant release a test body with the A99 chip and just strip out the AF, modes, AE, etc.
i actually am not much interested in the imatest results, i don't find them terribly informative for what matters to me. i would like to see side by side comparisons of some slr and m lenses on the m240 because i've always been curious how much the look of certain lenses was a result of the m9's AA free sensor and processing.
According to my copy of Erwin Puts Leica Compendium, there were only two optical formulas. V1 and V2. 50Lux V2 (1962-2004) has a different optical formula compared to V1 (1957 to 1961). V2 has E43 version (from 1962) and was replaced with V2 E46 pre-ASPH (0.7MFD) in 1995 until it was replaced by 50Lux ASPH. The optical formula for Summilux 50 V2 E43 and E46 are identical. Some also call the E46 version 3. The classic "rendering" of the 50Lux is actually over 50 years old, not bad huh?
thanks, that is what i thought, but my source was ken rockwell who isn't so dependable for other brands but seems to be a good source for leica.
I found the post from back in Dec. 2011... I think it was a 50 Lux v1. Anyway, the guy at the Leica store said it was really more a collectors' lens, perhaps because it was insanely priced, well over 2000 Euro. I didn't shoot much with it..
ah, i remember that post now. the lux v1 bokeh looks very different from what i would expect the v2 i'm shooting to do in that situation – it would produce more cat's eye shaping to the oof highlights and have less bright ringing. you v1 sample does look similar to some of the bokeh funk i've seen in pics from the f/1 noctilux to me actually, at least shape wise.