DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Luvwine wrote:
Well, the Zeiss 85/4 weighs about 300 grams compared to the Leica 90/4 macro Elmar at about 250. The Leica 90/2 apo is about 500, hardly a heavy weight for its aperture.
MTF's are not always comparable, but the 90/2 apo looks a bit better than the Summarit:
90/2: https://static.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/104980.pdf
90/2.5: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Summarit-M-90-mm-Technical-Data_en.pdf
Zeiss 85/4 for reference: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_zm/tele_tessar4_85zm_e.pdf
90/4 macro-Elmar mtf: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Macro-Elmar-M_90_mm_Technical_Data_en.pdf
Agreed that for weight, cost, and for just landscape, the Zeiss ZM 85/4 seems most practical. For a cost no object, maximum portability 90, the Leica 90/4 macro-elmar might be as good or better. For all round versatile 90 with a landscape emphasis, I submit it is still hard to beat the Leica 90/2 AA, albeit at a cost....Show more →
If the Macro-elmar is up with these lenses at infinity (and I'm not saying it isn't) it would be super impressive. Macro lenses are often optimised either for macro or for 1:10 or some milder magnification. The result is that they test very well at typical IMATEST (or DXO) distances - but that of course is not infinity. It is a *gorgeous* little thing though. I'd love to see how it does compare at infinity with the ZM as a compact alternative.
EDIT: just looked at the published MTFs of both, To the extent that they are comparable it looks as though the ZM is a little sharper stopped down in the outer field. But, surprisingly, it looks as though the Macro-Elmar has somewhat (even) better contrast! The 10 lpm lines are remarkable. Are Leica MTFs test results, or calculated?
|
