Impressive and also faked - those are simulated MTF charts based on computer models and not real ones. Apart from some manufacturers of scientific optics Zeiss and Leica are the only lens produces that provide actual measured charts.
denoir wrote:
Impressive and also faked - those are simulated MTF charts based on computer models and not real ones. Apart from some manufacturers of scientific optics Zeiss and Leica are the only lens produces that provide actual measured charts.
Perhaps. I don't know but I believe the Canon chart is also of the same nature.
Absolutely. The trouble being that we don't know how optimistic their computer models are. There was a site active a couple of years ago, photodo that did proper MTF tests. Unfortunately we don't have anything like that today, but here's an example of Canon vs Reality:
So, if that rules out the Cron 35/2 ... does that push one toward the Elmarit 35/2.8 for consideration ... or does it leave it down to the 35/2 vs. the Rok 35/1.4 vs.
Slightly off topic, but. . . since we are venturing into Leica-land a bit:
If the Leica R 35mm is not so hot for landscape/architecture, can anyone tell me how their R 28/2.8 holds up? I'm thinking about getting one, so don't want to be disappointed. (I'm keeping my ZE 35/2!)
Gunzorro wrote:
Very interesting discussion -- thanks all!
Slightly off topic, but. . . since we are venturing into Leica-land a bit:
If the Leica R 35mm is not so hot for landscape/architecture, can anyone tell me how their R 28/2.8 holds up? I'm thinking about getting one, so don't want to be disappointed. (I'm keeping my ZE 35/2!)
Your kidding right? The last Leica R 28 2.8 is considered one of the absolute best SLR lenses in this focal length you can get!
RustyBug wrote:
So, if that rules out the Cron 35/2 ... does that push one toward the Elmarit 35/2.8 for consideration ... or does it leave it down to the 35/2 vs. the Rok 35/1.4 vs.
The Leica Elmarit 35 R falls off severely in the corners but looks pretty decent stopped down otherwise.
Tariq -- Thanks. No, I wasn't kidding. I'm a Leica newbee. I just got the 60/28 macro R a few days ago, and the first test shots blew me away. Through the same seller I got the lead on the 28/2.8 R with detachable hood (barrel lugs) and have now purchased it, sight unseen at a good price ($275), based on the wonderful dealings with this seller. I should get it next week. If I had had a little more money, I could have bought the 90/2 R, which I have read is excellent. But can only do so much at a time.
Jim, that is the first version, which isn't meant to be special. The second version is a lot more expensive though, so give this one a fair chance, and maybe you will be happy with it anyway. I will be interested to see your results wide open and stopped down.
The usual: corner sharpness, contrast, boke, etc. On the other hand, sometimes these old Leicas have a nice look to them, and sometimes they have good centre sharpness and make really nice portraits. It could be a nice lens, I don't really know. All I know is that technically the second version is much better.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Contax 35/1.4 is imho one of the best 35 lenses ever made.
+1......and judging by the "New Zeiss" it looks like they threw away the mold to ever repeat this Classic.
Also - what the 35 Summicron E55 give up in the corners stopped down - and we're only talking extreme corners - makes up for it at f2 rendering - wonderful portraiture lens.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmm never mind things look pretty ugly on the MTF charts for the C/Y 35mm F1.4.
Depends, a lot of the MTF charts for C/Y lenses are lower than modern ZE charts, even when we know a lens performs better in different circumstances (35 CY vs 35 ZE, the CY gets sharp stopped down while the 35 takes longer and doesn't get as sharp in exchange for better WO performance, something that appears nowhere on the CY MTFs).
Aug 29, 2011 at 05:18 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
denoir wrote:
It's not the sharpness that is an issue, it's the contrast in the fine detail. You're below 50% for 40 lp/mm by mid frame at f/5.6 and it is more likely that it gets worse at f/8 than that it gets better.
Mind you, I've never used the lens - I'm just reading the MTF charts.
In the case of the Contax 28mm f/2.8, it seems the MTF gets quite a bit better by f/8 (which seems to match user experience). It is still weak in the extreme corners and has a bit of a zone B dip in microcontrast, but really it is not bad at all at f/8. You can see the f/8 MTF at the old photodo test site. They used a Zeiss machine for these measurements. Here are the f/2.8 and f/8 graphs from that site:
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Contax 35/1.4 is imho one of the best 35 lenses ever made.
+1
If I was forced to choose one single lens to be my only lens for the rest of my life, my pick would be the Rollei/CY 35/1.4, MTF charts be damned
Steve Spencer wrote:
In the case of the Contax 28mm f/2.8, it seems the MTF gets quite a bit better by f/8 (which seems to match user experience). It is still weak in the extreme corners and has a bit of a zone B dip in microcontrast, but really it is not bad at all at f/8. You can see the f/8 MTF at the old photodo test site. They used a Zeiss machine for these measurements. Here are the f/2.8 and f/8 graphs from that site:
