Deserving attempt. Very useful.
(We are working on something quite similar.)
It is a pity that the three best lenses are missing:
Contax 35-70 (in our tests the best 35mm lens)
Canon EF 24-105 f/4 (astonishing at 35mm and better than 35 f/1.4)
Contax 35 PC (second best Contax 35mm)
With all the positive comments I have beeen reading about the ZF 35/2 I am surprised it did not fair somewhat better in your lab tests - particularly with regard to edge resolution.
The summicron 35/2 is no doubt a very good lens, but on my copy I do see noticeable resolution loss in the extreme most corner regions (when shooting at f/8). Having said that the edge resolution of non-corner regions is extremely good.
Arianne Dubois wrote:
Deserving attempt. Very useful.
(We are working on something quite similar.)
It is a pity that the three best lenses are missing:
Contax 35-70 (in our tests the best 35mm lens)
Canon EF 24-105 f/4 (astonishing at 35mm and better than 35 f/1.4)
Contax 35 PC (second best Contax 35mm)
I will say I find the 35-70 to be a great lens - would love to see a comparison.
It hard for a lens to be all things to all people. I wonder if you should have 2 categories- fast 35 which is used with wide apertures and a 'landscape" 35mm which usually shot stopped way down, F8 or F11?
In the former, corner performance doesn't really matter as those area are usually out-of-focus. You are more interested in bokeh than sharpness in the outer edges.
With the "landscape" 35, bokeh doesn't matter and you need the critical sharpness all the way to the corners.
jonboring wrote:
It hard for a lens to be all things to all people. I wonder if you should have 2 categories- fast 35 which is used with wide apertures and a 'landscape" 35mm which usually shot stopped way down, F8 or F11?
In the former, corner performance doesn't really matter as those area are usually out-of-focus. You are more interested in bokeh than sharpness in the outer edges.
With the "landscape" 35, bokeh doesn't matter and you need the critical sharpness all the way to the corners.
this makes sense. double amount of work ;-) but makes sense... when i get free time, i'll add this to the review
...and with a "landscape" lens you probably won't find all that much difference in sharpness at f8 and f11 between these lenses. More important will be other factors like (micro)contrast, flare, color rendition, shadows, etc. None of which is tested.
You could walk away from this "test' as done and think there wasn't all that much difference between these lenses, and you could seamlessly substitute one for another. Of course we know that is far from reality. There is a lot in the comparative performance between these lenses that won't be conveyed by 2 simple data points.
Nice work, but again the definition of "borders" seems to cloud the results. I've tried about half of the listed lenses and my corner results don't match these border results, so I'd be careful about interpretting the results from the "borders".
For instance, I'm a long time proponent of the Zuiko 35/2.8 (tested 3 copies), but also have the Leica 35/2.8 (second version, which is supposed to be optically identical to the tested third version). After using both for hundreds of landscape shots stopped down to f/5.6-11, there is no doubt the corners are consistently superior on the 35/2.8 Elmarit.
Because I really wanted a 35/2 lens, I have also tried the Zuiko 35/2 (3 copies - from silvernose to latest MC), and a Leica 35/2 - neither had as good corner resolution as the Leica 35/2.8, or even the Zuiko 35/2.8 - when stopped down. To get better speed I went to the Zeiss 35/1.4 (albeit in RolleI mount), and found the performance superb, except for the *very* corners which show some decline.
Besides the "borders" issue. I am at a loss to understand how these tests can be so different from my own real world tests. I'm sure it is a combination of factors, but I wonder if these tests are done at a distance considerably less than infinity? I've found some lenses do very well at distances close in, but progressively worse towards infinity. If that is the case than these tests are more close focus, than real world performance for the type of photography I do.
B Landau wrote:
With all the positive comments I have beeen reading about the ZF 35/2 I am surprised it did not fair somewhat better in your lab tests - particularly with regard to edge resolution.
The summicron 35/2 is no doubt a very good lens, but on my copy I do see noticeable resolution loss in the extreme most corner regions (when shooting at f/8). Having said that the edge resolution of non-corner regions is extremely good.
You will see noticeable differences, in the extreme corners, with all these lenses stopped down to f8-11. Some don't have it no matter the aperture, the others have varying degrees (and types) of weakness, even when stopped down.
. Lotusm50 wrote:
...and with a "landscape" lens you probably won't find all that much difference in sharpness at f8 and f11 between these lenses. More important will be other factors like (micro)contrast, flare, color rendition, shadows, etc. None of which is tested.
