thrice wrote: denoir wrote:
The Zeiss ZM rangefinder lenses on the other hand are neither as sharp as their DSLR counterparts wide open nor as sharp as Leica M.
Of course that is only considering wide-open and stopped down resolution as far as MTF is concerned, if we put a weighting on distortion, CA and falloff the results would be interesting, but I think it would tip things further in the ZM\'s favour (aside from falloff obviously).
Perhaps wait until you have a calibrated rangefinder before making assertions about sharpness (or of course you could consult the Zeiss datasheets for each lens).
My assertions are not mine, but Lloyd Chambers\' and Erwin Puts\'. I can of course show it with MTF charts.
*sigh*. To save some time, I\'ll just list those where your conclusions are debatable.
Claim:
25 ZM > 25 ZF Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
35 ZM > 35 ZF
Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
50mm ZM = 50mm ZF Actual case:
Claim:
85mm ZM > 100mm ZF Actual case:
The two 28\'s are not comparable as one is f/2 and the other one is f/2.8. Also you forgot the two 50\'s Sonnar/Plannar.
That the 18 ZF is crap is a well known fact but it is really an exception.
What really surprised me was the 85 Sonnar. I thought the 100 MP would blow it away but in fact the Sonnar produces better fine detail in the center.
Of course some of the conclusions are based on what you priorities are. If you for instance value fine detail much more than local contrast (10 lp/mm) and mid level detail (20 lp/mm) then you could conclude that the 35 ZM > 35 ZF as the former is somewhat better at 40 lp/mm. My conclusions are based on sort of an estimation of the average performance across the frame. In the case of the 35 ZM, the 10 lp/mm is not very good except in the very center of the frame.
It was interesting looking through the MTF charts though. In many cases the results were different from what I expected with as a rule the ZMs being better than I thought.
thrice wrote: denoir wrote:
The Zeiss ZM rangefinder lenses on the other hand are neither as sharp as their DSLR counterparts wide open nor as sharp as Leica M.
Of course that is only considering wide-open and stopped down resolution as far as MTF is concerned, if we put a weighting on distortion, CA and falloff the results would be interesting, but I think it would tip things further in the ZM\'s favour (aside from falloff obviously).
Perhaps wait until you have a calibrated rangefinder before making assertions about sharpness (or of course you could consult the Zeiss datasheets for each lens).
My assertions are not mine, but Lloyd Chambers\' and Erwin Puts\'. I can of course show it with MTF charts.
*sigh*. This is going to waste some of my time. To save some time, I\'ll just list those where you are wrong.
Claim:
25 ZM > 25 ZF Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
35 ZM > 35 ZF
Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
50mm ZM = 50mm ZF Actual case:
Claim:
85mm ZM > 100mm ZF Actual case:
The two 28\'s are not comparable as one is f/2 and the other one is f/2.8. Also you forgot the two 50\'s Sonnar/Plannar.
thrice wrote: denoir wrote:
The Zeiss ZM rangefinder lenses on the other hand are neither as sharp as their DSLR counterparts wide open nor as sharp as Leica M.
Of course that is only considering wide-open and stopped down resolution as far as MTF is concerned, if we put a weighting on distortion, CA and falloff the results would be interesting, but I think it would tip things further in the ZM\'s favour (aside from falloff obviously).
Perhaps wait until you have a calibrated rangefinder before making assertions about sharpness (or of course you could consult the Zeiss datasheets for each lens).
My assertions are not mine, but Lloyd Chambers\' and Erwin Puts\'. I can of course show it with MTF charts.
*sigh*. This is going to waste some of my time. To save some time, I\'ll just list those where you are wrong.
Claim:
25 ZM > 25 ZF Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
35 ZM > 35 ZF
Actual case (blue is ZF):
Claim:
50mm ZM = 50mm ZF Actual case:
Claim:
85mm ZM > 100mm ZF Actual case:
The two 28\'s are not comparable as one is f/2 and the other one is f/2.8. Also you forgot the two 50\'s Sonnar/Plannar.
That the 18 ZF is crap is a well known fact but it is really an exception. I was actually also very nice to the ZM side by saying that 25mm ZM = 25mm ZF where in fact it should probably be 25mm ZM < 25mm ZF.
What really surprised me was the 85 Sonnar. I thought the 100 MP would blow it away but in fact the Sonnar produces better fine detail in the center.
(or of course you could consult the Zeiss datasheets for each lens).
