Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of denoir's message #9569571 « Zeiss 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 for Landscaping »

  

denoir
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 for Landscaping


Yes, well, at least in the central part of the image. The MTF charts below are for either f/4 or at f/5.6.

black = 35/1.4 ZE
blue = 35/2 ZE








As you can see, from the 40 lp/mm lines the 35/1.4 has an advantage near the center of the frame but the 35/2 overtakes it somewhere around 8 mm.

Of course, the 21 Distagon outclasses them both:

black = 35/1.4 ZE
blue = 35/2 ZE
red = 21/2.8 ZE







The green vertical lines mark the short edge, long edge and corners of the image.

I've always found the 35/2 a bit lacking for landscapes and it looks like the 35/1.4 wouldn't suit me at least either. It's different with a better rendering of fine detail in the center, but that drops off to the edges. The field curvature seems to be significant something that isn't good in a landscape lens.

Going a bit offtopic, but on the general theme - how would the MTF curves of a good landscape lens look like? Well, I know from personal experience that the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM (rangefinder lens) is really good. This is what we see when we look at the MTF charts:

black = 35/2 ZE (Distagon)
blue = 35/2 ZM (Biogon)







Here we can see a very significant increase in the fine detail (the 40 lp/mm), so that's consistent.

What about two 35/1.4's?

black = 35/1.4 ZE
red = Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH







The Leica has higher overall contrast/resolution but it shows a lot of field curvature. I really love that lens but I've never been completely sold on it as a landscape lens. The wavy lines are probably the explanation. You don't want that field curvature - the ideal landscape lens would have high contrast in the fine detail (i.e the 40 lp/mm line) and would be flat across the field.

The 21 Distagon is an example of a lens that isn't far from the ideal. Two other candidates would be the Leica Summicron-M 28/2 ASPH:







and the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM:







--
So to round things up - 35/1.4 ZE vs 35/2 ZE for landscapes: Not easy - the 35/2 is more consistent across the field with less field curvature but its rendering of fine detail could be much better. The 35/1.4 produces better detail center/mid frame but suffers from field curvature meaning an uneven resolution across the frame. Take your pick

The best landscaping 35 that I've used is the 35/2 Biogon, a lens that I thoroughly dislike at larger apertures. It's an unfortunate reality that just because a lens is very good at one thing doesn't automatically mean it's good at everything.



May 09, 2011 at 03:11 PM
denoir
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 for Landscaping


Yes, well, at least in the central part of the image.

black = 35/1.4 ZE
blue = 35/2 ZE








As you can see, from the 40 lp/mm lines the 35/1.4 has an advantage near the center of the frame but the 35/2 overtakes it somewhere around 8 mm.

Of course, the 21 Distagon outclasses them both:

black = 35/1.4 ZE
blue = 35/2 ZE
red = 21/2.8 ZE







The green vertical lines mark the short edge, long edge and corners of the image.

I've always found the 35/2 a bit lacking for landscapes and it looks like the 35/1.4 wouldn't suit me at least either. It's different with a better rendering of fine detail in the center, but that drops off to the edges. The field curvature seems to be significant something that isn't good in a landscape lens.

Going a bit offtopic, but on the general theme - how would the MTF curves of a good landscape lens look like? Well, I know from personal experience that the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM (rangefinder lens) is really good. This is what we see when we look at the MTF charts:

black = 35/2 ZE (Distagon)
blue = 35/2 ZM (Biogon)







Here we can see a very significant increase in the fine detail (the 40 lp/mm), so that's consistent.

What about two 35/1.4's?

black = 35/1.4 ZE
red = Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH







The Leica has higher overall contrast/resolution but it shows a lot of field curvature. I really love that lens but I've never been completely sold on it as a landscape lens. The wavy lines are probably the explanation. You don't want that field curvature - the ideal landscape lens would have high contrast in the fine detail (i.e the 40 lp/mm line) and would be flat across the field.

The 21 Distagon is an example of a lens that isn't far from the ideal. Two other candidates would be the Leica Summicron-M 28/2 ASPH:







and the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM:







--
So to round things up - 35/1.4 ZE vs 35/2 ZE for landscapes: Not easy - the 35/2 is more consistent across the field with less field curvature but its rendering of fine detail could be much better. The 35/1.4 produces better detail center/mid frame but suffers from field curvature meaning an uneven resolution across the frame. Take your pick

The best landscaping 35 that I've used is the 35/2 Biogon, a lens that I thoroughly dislike at larger apertures. It's an unfortunate reality that just because a lens is very good at one thing doesn't automatically mean it's good at everything.



May 09, 2011 at 11:41 AM



  Previous versions of denoir's message #9569571 « Zeiss 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 for Landscaping »