p.6 #1 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
The M8 will have the advantage in some lower light situations where the M lenses perform much better wide open than the Nikon equivalents. In other words, a M8 shot at 1250iso (1600) at f1.4 would produce an image of similar quality to a Nikon D3 at f2.8 at 6400iso. I was at a photo workshop in SanJuan in the spring and two of the participants had Nikon D3. In low light and the Nikon 50mm f1.4, the comparable M8 and Noctilux images were sharper and better focused.
Here are a few examples from San Juan. These are without post processing and noise reduction. Noise Ninja or a similar program will deal with some of the noise, but at the cost of some fine details.
The Nikkor 50/1.4 performs adequately for its cost. Which is around $300. I wouldn't expect it to rival a Noctilux at wide apertures since it can't rival any of the other f1.4 or faster options in its native mount for wide-aperture performance. Stick a Noct-Nikkor on that D3 and you'd see a completely different story. Heck even the CV 58/1.4 or ZF 50/1.4 would perform distinctly better than a Nikkor 50/1.4 and the D3's got enough of a high ISO advantage that I could stick the ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar on and have a little leeway in the performance gap with a lens that will utterly destroy the Noctilux for max aperture performance. And I can buy a Noct-Nikkor and a D700 for the cost of a new M8 body or a Noctilux.
p.6 #2 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
kidtexas wrote:
From what (little) I've seen, the EF 50/1.4 is on par with the 50/1.2 at 1.4, if not a little better...
The EF 50/1.4 isn't even in shouting distance of the 50/1.2L for wide-aperture performance. It's sole advantage is the lack of focus shift (an issue which certainly does affect many of the better RF lenses including the Noctilux).
p.6 #3 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
mawz wrote:
The Nikkor 50/1.4 performs adequately for its cost. Which is around $300. I wouldn't expect it to rival a Noctilux at wide apertures since it can't rival any of the other f1.4 or faster options in its native mount for wide-aperture performance. Stick a Noct-Nikkor on that D3 and you'd see a completely different story. Heck even the CV 58/1.4 or ZF 50/1.4 would perform distinctly better than a Nikkor 50/1.4 and the D3's got enough of a high ISO advantage that I could stick the ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar on and have a little leeway in the performance gap with a lens that will utterly destroy the Noctilux for max aperture performance. And I can buy a Noct-Nikkor and a D700 for the cost of a new M8 body or a Noctilux....Show more →
Did you look at the MTF charts I posted a few posts above? I went back to the Zeiss site and looked at the 50mm f1.4 stopped down to f5.6 and it wasn't much ahead of the Leica at f1.4. My guess is the Zeiss lens probably needs to be stopped down to at least 2.8 to be as good as the leica is a f1.4.
p.6 #5 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
mawz wrote:
The EF 50/1.4 isn't even in shouting distance of the 50/1.2L for wide-aperture performance. It's sole advantage is the lack of focus shift (an issue which certainly does affect many of the better RF lenses including the Noctilux).
Funny, that's not what I saw in lens tests around the web. Granted I didn't do them myself. But I saw the EF 50/1.4 being the same or better at most apertures, including 1.4. The sole exception being f/1.2 naturally. The 50L also seems to have more CA and other artifacts too. And its bigger and more expensive.
I don't necessarily consider the Noctilux a 'better' lens. It's more expensive and faster, but you give up a lot. I'd bet the new Noctilux doesn't exhibit focus shift though, since it has a floating element. That's purely academic for me though since it costs $10k. That's stupid money.
I'd call the 50/1.4A one of the best 50's out there.
The chart doesn't mention the aperture, or what was plotted. When I went to the Canon site I came up with this explanation:
"Canon's MTF charts give results at two apertures: wide-open, and stopped down to f/8, with the lens set to infinity focus. While MTF charts don't include many factors that can be important when selecting a lens (size, cost, handling, closest focusing distances, AF speed, linear distortion, evenness of illumination, and of course features like Image Stabilization which may produce superior real-world results), they can indicate to the knowledgeable reviewer some of the optical characteristics they can expect from a particular lens. "
In other words, the top two pair of lines are for f8 performance, the bottom two f1.2. It doesn't look so hot at f1.2. The Leica at f1.4 spend most of the plot in the 90% range. The Canon spends most under 70%.
p.6 #10 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
Did you look at the MTF charts I posted a few posts above? I went back to the Zeiss site and looked at the 50mm f1.4 stopped down to f5.6 and it wasn't much ahead of the Leica at f1.4. My guess is the Zeiss lens probably needs to be stopped down to at least 2.8 to be as good as the leica is a f1.4.
And that's not the lens I was saying would destroy the Noctilux wide-open, I was referring to the ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar which is greatly superior to the ZF 50/1.4 wide open as well. The only thing I said about the ZF 50/1.4 Planar is that it would be a distinct improvement over the Nikkor 50/1.4 which that photographer had on his D3 (which is quite mediocre at wide apertures). To match the Summilux-M ASPH for pure resolving power, you'd need to look at one of the Aspherical designs which means either the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 or the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM and frankly I'd expect the Summilux to have an advantage over either (Over the Noct-Nikkor due to advances in design and over the Sigma due to better QC and less corner cutting). The ZF 50/1.4 is similar in design to the last pre-ASPH Summilux. As far as I'm aware the f1.0 Noctilux is also inferior to the latest Summilux at f1.4.
p.6 #11 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Just to make it a bit more fair, here is the MTF of the new Noctilux to compare to the Canon 50mm f1.2. Notice at a stop faster than the Canon, it still outperforms it. According to Erwin Puts, this new Noctilux is little improved over the old, so the old one would be similar at f1.
These reviews/tests show better edge sharpness on the 50/1.4 wide open and comparable/slightly better/slightly worse sharpness in the center. Not that that's everything The 50/1.2L is better at flare control...
p.6 #13 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
Just to make it a bit more fair, here is the MTF of the new Noctilux to compare to the Canon 50mm f1.2. Notice at a stop faster than the Canon, it still outperforms it. According to Erwin Puts, this new Noctilux is little improved over the old, so the old one would be similar at f1.
Just to note, but comparing MTF's across manufacturers is essentially useless, there's too much variation in test methodology.
p.6 #14 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
Did you look at the MTF charts I posted a few posts above? I went back to the Zeiss site and looked at the 50mm f1.4 stopped down to f5.6 and it wasn't much ahead of the Leica at f1.4. My guess is the Zeiss lens probably needs to be stopped down to at least 2.8 to be as good as the leica is a f1.4.
Again, you're comparing a rangefinder 50mm lens to an SLR 50mm lens. The rangefinder lens will almost always be better. It's apples and oranges. You can't use the M lens on a SLR. I agree that rangefinder lenses are generally better. Zeiss once told me that their rangefinder lenses for the Contax G were about 20% better than the Contax SLR lenses.
But I disagree with your assessment above, the ZF at 5.6 is significantly ahead of the Leica at 1.4 -- that's if we believe we can compare the charts, which we can't becuase they are not done on a comparable basis. However, I accept the commonly understood generalization about Leica and Zeiss lenses. Leica lens perform better wide open and Zeiss lens perform better stopped down. Most side-by-side tests (SLR lens compared to SLR lenses) suggest that there really isn't all that much between them.
But it's not even clear what your point is. We all know that Leica M lenses are excellent -- not one is denying that. But that doesn't mean that everything else is crap, and it doesn't mean that the M8 is eminently desirable becuase of them. The M8 doesn't begin to capture all that the lenses are able to provide. To a very large degree, the lenses are far from fully utilized on an M8. A current full-frame Canon body with a relatively disadvantaged SLR lens (disadvantaged becuase it is an SLR lens, and not a rangefinder design lens), will still significantly outperform the M8.
$9,000 for an M8 and a Summilux-M, and $3,200 for a 5D Mkll and a Zeiss ZE, and 5D/ZE combination will outperform the M8 just about every time. And this is before we talk about rangerfinder-vs-SLR issues (Richard has listed them, and it is debatable as to whether they are significant or not). I like rangefinders, and would like a digital rangefinder, but right now the price-performance gap is huge and larger than ever -- they are over-priced and under-perform, regardless of how good the lenses are.
p.6 #15 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Lotusm50 wrote:
But it's not even clear what your point is. We all know that Leica M lenses are excellent -- not one is denying that.
The title to the thread is about the M8, so I am comparing the lenses you can use on a M8 to those the competition has on their SLRs. What I said a few posts up is that the M8 high iso may not be good, but the lenses are that much better that you can shoot two stops wider open to use the good lower iso performance of the M8 and not taking into account DOF, have pictures as good as the competition.
Brainiac went on to say the current crop of SLRs are up to three stops better than the M8 at high iso. I then went on to say that if you take the lens quality of the Leica high speed lenses, the difference is really only one or two stops.
For this premise of mine to be true, I have to show that the fast Leica lenses are performing better than the competion's lenses. The only current competion is from the Canon/Nikon SLRs. That is how we get to M versus SLR lenses.
When Zeiss or Nikon makes a digital rangefinder, we can then compare apples to apples.
p.6 #16 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
mawz wrote:
Just to note, but comparing MTF's across manufacturers is essentially useless, there's too much variation in test methodology.
I would agree on this, especially with the Canon MTFs. The Zeiss and Leica MTFs seem to follow the same pattern and are at least a good starting point.
Robert
Jan 13, 2009 at 05:30 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.6 #17 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
The M lenses are great, and if, like me, you aren't too keen on Leica's lens design goals, then you can also use the excellent Zeiss ZM and Cosina lenses.
But all this talk of whether an M 24 f1.4 is a better lens than a Canon 35 L is beside the point. For a fraction of the price you can get better pictures in all light, including low light, from a much cheaper camera system, which has a wide range of advantages over the M8. The M8 lets down its lenses, and the lenses can't compensate for the disadvantages of the M8. There's no knowing when or if an M8 successor will arrive.
p.6 #18 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
kidtexas wrote:
Funny, that's not what I saw in lens tests around the web. Granted I didn't do them myself. But I saw the EF 50/1.4 being the same or better at most apertures, including 1.4. The sole exception being f/1.2 naturally. The 50L also seems to have more CA and other artifacts too. And its bigger and more expensive.
I don't necessarily consider the Noctilux a 'better' lens. It's more expensive and faster, but you give up a lot. I'd bet the new Noctilux doesn't exhibit focus shift though, since it has a floating element. That's purely academic for me though since it costs $10k. That's stupid money.
I'd call the 50/1.4A one of the best 50's out there. ...Show more →
Note that floating elements do not eliminate focus shift (the 50L has one as well), what they do is optimize performance to the focus distance. Focus shift is entirely dependent on aperture. The EF 50/1.4 is a decent lens, but outside of the range where focus shift is a distinct issue (f2-f5.6) on the 50L, the L is better in all regards except possibly CA. And focus shift is at least partially ignorable on current LV-equipped bodies since you can focus at working aperture.
p.6 #19 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
The title to the thread is about the M8, so I am comparing the lenses you can use on a M8 to those the competition has on their SLRs. What I said a few posts up is that the M8 high iso may not be good, but the lenses are that much better that you can shoot two stops wider open to use the good lower iso performance of the M8 and not taking into account DOF, have pictures as good as the competition.
Of course all this assumes that you actually want seriously shallow DOF in low light, rather than decent DOF which does in fact require higher ISO.
p.6 #20 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
The title to the thread is about the M8, so I am comparing the lenses you can use on a M8 to those the competition has on their SLRs. What I said a few posts up is that the M8 high iso may not be good, but the lenses are that much better that you can shoot two stops wider open to use the good lower iso performance of the M8 and not taking into account DOF, have pictures as good as the competition.
Brainiac went on to say the current crop of SLRs are up to three stops better than the M8 at high iso. I then went on to say that if you take the lens quality of the Leica high speed lenses, the difference is really only one or two stops. ...Show more →
The key assumption here is "not taking into account DOF". An f1.4 image no matter how sharp the plane of focus is, is not the same as a f2.8 image. In a lot of situations f1.4 just isn't feasible or desired.
That said, I would essentially agree with your basic construct, if you can spare the DOF, the Leica lenses might give you an additional stop, assuming that the SLR lens is unacceptably sharp at the larger aperture. From the ZF lenses I have used, I can tell you that they all perform quite well wide open, and are certainly easily usable and perceptively sharp wide open. For your construct to hold the SLR lenses must be unacceptably unsharp at the larger aperture -- regardless of whether the Leica lens is better or not --, and from what I have seen, that's just not the case. You can still get the shot with the SLR lens, so in practice your construct doesn't hold in general or as a rule (for a specific pair of lenses you might have it might hold, but you can not generalize.
The 50/1.2L is better at flare control...