35mm and 50mm Lens Performance.

M

Monokrome

Member
Local time
11:31 AM
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
30
Location
UK
View My Gallery
In terms of absolute sharpness and resolution, which of the 35mm and 50mm lenses for the Leica M series Cameras provides the optimum performance?
 
This question cannot be answered, because it depends on aperture, format and what you are doing with the images. At f8 and on a 5x7 print they will all be the same. At f2, the Summarits wont do well!

In absolute terms, I think it makes absolutely no difference. I would advise you choose lenses depending on focal length, speed requirement, budget and contrast (i.e. a sumamrit 35 is lower in contrast than the cron asph and this might be desirable if you shoot digital).
 
It depends. Depends on the aperture first of all, then depends if you want sharpness across the field or mainly in the center. Generally speaking, the more recent a lens is and the slower it is ( i.e. max aperture is smaller), the more resolution and microcontrast (apparent sharpnes) it will have. The Summicron 35 ASPH is probably the sharpest Leica 35mm lens overall, but the 35/2 or 35/2.8 Biogon may be sharper in the corners at smaller apertures. Among the 50mm lenses, apparently the 3.5/50 Heliar is the sharpest lens around, but if you look at faster lenses, then it is probably a tie between the current Summicron and the Planar, while the Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH is widely regarded as the sharpest fast 50mm.
 
mfogiel said:
It depends. Depends on the aperture first of all, then depends if you want sharpness across the field or mainly in the center. Generally speaking, the more recent a lens is and the slower it is ( i.e. max aperture is smaller), the more resolution and microcontrast (apparent sharpness) it will have.

The Summicron 35 ASPH is probably the sharpest Leica 35mm lens overall, but the 35/2 or 35/2.8 Biogon may be sharper in the corners at smaller apertures.

Among the 50mm lenses, apparently the 3.5/50 Heliar is the sharpest lens around, but if you look at faster lenses, then it is probably a tie between the current Summicron and the Planar, while the Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH is widely regarded as the sharpest fast 50mm.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying, I had a feeling that my question would be ignored, as some people prefer a certain aesthetic look from their lenses rather just pure technical quality.
The reason I asked is because I have just bought my first Leica Camera, which is an M6 TTL `0.85` body and I wanted to find out a bit more about the lenses before buying.
 
Another vote for the Leica 50mm and 35mm Summilux's. The 50mm f 3.5 Heliar is also said to be superb and others like the early 50mm Summicrons for resolution and sharpness. I have and use the first two lenses mentioned. They are far better lenses than I am a photographer which brings up an important point. When you get up to this level of quality in a lens, most photographers will have trouble finding a critical difference between them. One other factor, buying good glass is almost always a good investment. Joe
 
Even if you talk about resolution and Leica lenses only, you have to be more specific, if you mean center resolution, across the field, at which distance and at which f stop.

All across and at fast apertures, the best Leica performers are 35/1.4 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/1.4 ASPH and 50/2 (modern).

In the center, wide open and at infinity, the 35/2.8 Summaron, 50/2 DR Summicron, and 50/1.4 pre-asph Summilux v2 might have been higher resolution (!) than the modern lenses. At the expense of corner resolution and micro-contrast.

If you talk other M-mount brands as well, you also have to consider ZM Biogon and Planar, M-Hexanons, 50/1.5 Nokton (f2 and up) and 50/3.5 Heliar.

The highest 35mm resolution lens ever built is supposed to be the 25/2.8 ZM Biogon.

MTF charts for most of these are available.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
In 50mm, I haven't tried the 50/3.5 Heliar, but the CV Nokton 50/1.5 aspherical has edge-to-edge sharpness comparable with the 10X priced Summilux 50/1.4 asph.

Between the 35mm, nothing can beat in terms of sharpness the current Summicron-M 35/2 asph. A close second is the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8ZM.
 
Roalnd and I must have covered over 50 lenses in the lens comparisons shown on RFF in the past. Take a look at the results and make your mind.
 
Fuchs said:
In 50mm, I haven't tried the 50/3.5 Heliar, but the CV Nokton 50/1.5 aspherical has edge-to-edge sharpness comparable with the 10X priced Summilux 50/1.4 asph.

Between the 35mm, nothing can beat in terms of sharpness the current Summicron-M 35/2 asph. A close second is the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8ZM.
Click to expand...
Thanks to everyone for all the replies so far, I have just been browsing the internet and the 35mm f/2 ASPH is high on my short list. It has been pointed out to me by a PM, that the 50mm f/2.5 Summarit-M might also be worth considering. How do those compare with the Summicron in terms of sharpness across the image?
I am still also considering a 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.
Ken Rockwell`s name seems to be coming up a lot when I do a Google search.
 
Monokrome said:
Thanks to everyone for all the replies so far, I have just been browsing the internet and the 35mm f/2 ASPH is high on my short list. It has been pointed out to me by a PM, that the 50mm f/2.5 Summarit-M might also be worth considering. How do those compare with the Summicron in terms of sharpness across the image?
I am still also considering a 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.
Ken Rockwell`s name seems to be coming up a lot when I do a Google search.
Click to expand...

Monokrome, the point I was trying to make is that IMHO you are very much focusing on the wrong issues in that they are all but irrelevant until you have considered other factors. If we assume your goal is photography - the production of fine images - why have you asked about nothing but resolution? You have said nothing of what you are going to be doing with it.

If your question was purely academic it would make more sense, but you are actually asking 'in order to make the right purchase' and missing completely the other things that matter.

Do you have other lenses, or intend to buy them (filter sizes, contrast matching)
Digital or film (speeds you use)? (contrast, resolution)
Landscapes, people, low light (aperture, focus shift)
Budget?

Does it have to be a Leica lens?

If all you want it the sharpest Leica/Zeiss lens you can get, you still will end up with more lenses on the list than off it because to split them is to split hairs in many cases. Contrast, look, handling etc all vary considerably more than raw resolution, as does where max resolution falls in the aperture range.

I would suggest that you pick your focal length first and go from there. If resolution comes before focal length and everything else, then IMO you are shooting yourself in the foot before even starting.

Is this purchase about making great photographs or collecting/ownership/technical stuff?
 
Last edited:
Congratulations! For maximum sharpness, you will also want a sturdy tripod. Enjoy your new purchases -- they are some of the finest photographic tools ever made.

Ben Marks
 
For decades the 2/50 Summicron M has been the reference, equally sharp at all apertures. Symmetrical Double-Gauss designs are easier to make from 50mm to 90mm focal lengths than at 35mm or wider. Because of this their price is lower, giving the impression that they are not as good as the more expensive optics made by Leica. Of course, the king of resolution at the moment is the new 1,4/50 ASPH but so is its royal price.

regards
and a Happy New Year.
 
Turtle said:
This question cannot be answered, because it depends on aperture, format and what you are doing with the images. At f8 and on a 5x7 print they will all be the same. At f2, the Summarits wont do well!

In absolute terms, I think it makes absolutely no difference. I would advise you choose lenses depending on focal length, speed requirement, budget and contrast (i.e. a sumamrit 35 is lower in contrast than the cron asph and this might be desirable if you shoot digital).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were referring to the former F1.5 'model', because actually the Summarits maximum aperture when it was released a few years ago was 2.5, not f2.

I was shooting with a Leica CM that was stunningly sharp at its F2.4 and I have seen examples of this new 2.5 lens that were also stunningly sharp at 2.5.
 
Jaans said:
Perhaps you were referring to the former F1.5 'model', because actually the Summarits maximum aperture when it was released a few years ago was 2.5, not f2.

I was shooting with a Leica CM that was stunningly sharp at its F2.4 and I have seen examples of this new 2.5 lens that were also stunningly sharp at 2.5.
Click to expand...

I was making the point that determining your speed needs does matter because at f2 the new summarits wont do well because they don't have f2! The 50 heliar does not even have 2.8 and it is reputedly the sharpest lens ever tested by AP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom