alternative to .95

[djon]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=153&sort=7&cat=all&page=6

 

[Sonnar2]

would be interesting to have them compared picture by picture wide open.

 

[jlw]

I'm sure the current 50/1 is "better." I've looked at its MTF curves on whatever that Swedish site is, and it appears that (unlike Leica) Canon designed its lens for usable performance across the field, rather than being as sharp as possible in the middle and then "falling off a cliff" about 1/3 out.

I agree that it would be fun to see some side-by-side pictures to see how the state-of-the-art has advanced since 1961.

However, this thingie isn't really an alternative to the 50/0.95 because you have to use it on a lame-o SLR, rather than an RF camera...

 

[djon]

It's a obese blimp. But it's a fast obese blimp...and if autofocus is accurate it'd arguably be more useful for stage photography than would the rangefinder.

And of course, you can use it on a DSLR.

 

[Sonnar2]

Much plastic but 1/2 heavier than the old "dream lens".. no thanks.
Don't saw the 1.0/50mm MTF charts but I remeber reading the 0.95 has 40 lp/mm center resolution, 28lp/mm on axis wide open (dunno at which contrast this was measured). With less than one inch depth-of-field neither a flat field, nor critical edge-sharpness is required IMHO...

cheers, Frank

 

[jlw]

And of course, you can use it on a DSLR.

And ONLY on an SLR, "D" or otherwise. That's the problem with it, in a nutshell.

 

[jdos2]

Of course one could buy an adapter to fit the Canon on a Leica, but scale focusing that lens, and wide open...

🙂

 

[djon]

I agree with all of the above, wouldn't want either lens. But 1.2 might be another matter, especially if somebody eventually makes a proper digital rangefinder (it won't be Epson).