freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
hanay78 wrote:
Dear @mskad2@, @Fred_Miranda, @ MAubrey and philip_pj thanks for your answers related to thin filter conversion.
I am asking because I did test thin filter conversion with @Bastiak with Voigts LTM 21/f4 35/f2.5 and Elmarit 28/2.8 iii and sincerely, my impression was that the M10 camera was, at f8, largely superior in details to the Sony converted one, in spite of the Leica being only 24 megapixels.
Then I read the excellent article of @Bastiak, https://phillipreeve.net/blog/different-filter-stacks-and-what-they-mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/ where one may obtain different consequences, albeit, with other lenses. I also find very interesting the results got with the Z6.
I like a lot this results of Fred, https://phillipreeve.net/blog/different-filter-stacks-and-what-they-mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/ And, those are the reason why I cannot understand why The Cron 50 IV or V are praised as the lenses which all others compare.
In spite of a nice rendering, the ghosting in Cron is terrible, especially when compared with the long available planar 50. ...Show more →
The closest I've come to film-like performance in digital is an rII with everything, including the CFA, stripped off. All my Nikon and Leica R lenses look the same as they do on the F100 or R9, respectively, when loaded with Tri-X. I wasn't sure how long the sensor would last without any coverglass, but it's been almost four years now and it's still going strong. Those silicon wafers are tougher than I thought.
I don't know that anyone's holding up any of the Cron 50s as state-of-the-art, high objective performers. If you love one, odds are you love it just as much for it's flawed wide-open performance as you do it's solid performance stopped down. The 1976 redesign first launched in the R line and moved to the the M in 1979, if I remember correctly, helped define the "Leica look" for an entire generation, which has kept it in production, with it's undercorrected SA giving everything a soft central glow surrounded by some heavy vignetting. Objectively, it's not even the best double gauss 50/2 of its age. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Oly, and Minolta all had slightly higher resolution offerings that were progressively less dependent on cemented pairs in their designs. Minolta's six-in-six 1981 MD 50/2, that was never expensive to begin with and now regularly sells for between $15-30, blows the last Cron away in both overall resolution and consistency in performance regardless of focus distance, but it lacks any distinct characteristics that make it a stand-out. The Cron, for better or worse, depending on your perspective, is distinct.
Flare resistance has never been a hallmark of the design at that age, though. The modern ZM Planar has the advantage of being redesigned and manufactured in this century.
|
The widest I had was the Skopar 21mm f/3.5, and it worked great, as did the 24mm Elmar and the rest of my other lenses I had, but all were from 21mm and on.