Steve Spencer Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
philip_pj wrote:
This information was provided because many will read threads that do not differentiate between the two versions. They vary in important ways, notably wide open. It's of interest, seeing the attention devoted to WO image quality in the Leica M world.
5-7% may not be 'slightly' to others; if I had anything that was worth that much more, I'd be inclined to use other words. 'Substantial' comes to mind. You even allude to it: 'they are a *big* higher performing'
IMO, you are making too much about the MTF differences. Five to seven percent contrast at 40 lp/mm at already high levels of contrast is hard to see even magnified at 100%. Both lenses are very sharp. IMO it is a slight difference, but of course YMMV and that may be more important to you. To me it is clear that keeping the lenses smaller for Leica M was more important than that slight difference in sharpness for Cosina. I think they made the right call there, but you of course are free to disagree. I bought the 50 f/2 APO for Leica M mount, but if it was any bigger I would not have bought it. I won't buy the 35 f/2 APO for Leica M mount as I simply find it too big on a Leica M camera, but that is just me. Again differences of opinion on such matters are to be expected, but personally I find the 50 f/2 APO to be just barely acceptable in size and the 35 f/2 APO to be too big and both to be plenty sharp enough even though they don't quite match their mirrorless brothers.
|