x-ray
Veteran
If the person testing used the TTL metering as I suspect he did it makes no difference whether it's T or F stops. The camera indicates the actual amount of light coming through the lens not the theoretical amount based on F or T stops. On the other hand if he used a hand held meter yes it makes a difference.
The AA 50 is a great lens no doubt but it's all about bragging right with Leica and the few that will buy it.
The AA 50 is a great lens no doubt but it's all about bragging right with Leica and the few that will buy it.
x-ray
Veteran
Not everyone likes the look of Leicas ASPH glass. Last year I sold my Asph 50 summilux and 35 asph summicron and decided my Planar and Biogon Zeiss were much more to my liking. Actually for my taste I feel these are the two finest lenses for 35 that I've ever owned. It's all a matter of taste though. I like a smoother rendition, more classic, but low flare and sharp without looking over sharp like the new Leica glass. I also have a 90 AA that I may sell in time. It too has the edge that I don't care for. I've found in the past few years I tend to use my 75 Summilux and 90 Elmarit much more. I realize it's because I like the smoother tonality and more natural look of the older designs.
It's just a personal preference.
It's just a personal preference.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
If you look at the word Bolivar towards the bottom right you'll see that the APO was focussed significantly closer than the Planar. It's difficult to compare the performance of these lenses if the reviewer doesn't even bother to have them focussed in the same plane. That said, the 50 Planar does look very good indeed (irrespective of the fact it costs 1/8 that of the APO).
ian_watts
Ian Watts
'Brett' seems to think he can see a big difference between this lens and all other M lenses on the M9. One of you (or neither) must be right.
horosu
Well-known
Let's keep in mind that Zeiss uses measured MTF values whereas Leica's are computed.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One simply cannot say that without controlled side-by-side comparisons.
It should absolutely be visible in 100% crops if the difference is there, if -- and this is a big if -- the comparisons are carefully done.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
With suitable production tolerances (which I believe Leica to be capable of maintaining) there should be no difference between measured and computed. Bigger questions include the distance at which the MTF applies, the light wavelengths and weightings used, etc. Two MTFs from two manufacturers are unlikely to be directly comparable. As Ken Rockwell* points out, Schneider provides real MTF information, not the preschool-toy information that L & Z give us.
A bigger issue is that in the linked test we are not looking at the performance of lenses alone, as in a true MTF test, but at the performance of an imaging chain -- lens-M9 sensor-RAW converter.
The other elements of the chain might well hide very real differences in the lenses. But what this test does imply is that under fairly typical field conditions, on an M9, there's probably not a meaningful difference between the lenses.
*Who on technical matters is actually pretty good in most cases.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Without any disrespect to Ming Thein, the MTF charts for these two lenses tell a different story. Being a planar 50 user, I'm all for praising it - I like mine a great deal and will continue to do so. Based on the objectivity of the MTFs, however, it is simply not in the same league as the APO Cron 50.
My understanding is that Leica and Zeiss provide measured MTFs (at infinity in white light), not theoretical, and that Leica actually uses Zeiss equipment to perform the measurements.
Not liking the result of the MTF comparison is fine. Allowing one's displeasure with a measured result to lead to narrow invalidation of the measurement (or biased preference for other "tests") is insecurity. My planar 50 is an excellent lens, makes fine images when I'm up to the task, and that won't change as a result of a superior lens being available.
My understanding is that Leica and Zeiss provide measured MTFs (at infinity in white light), not theoretical, and that Leica actually uses Zeiss equipment to perform the measurements.
Not liking the result of the MTF comparison is fine. Allowing one's displeasure with a measured result to lead to narrow invalidation of the measurement (or biased preference for other "tests") is insecurity. My planar 50 is an excellent lens, makes fine images when I'm up to the task, and that won't change as a result of a superior lens being available.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
You are assuming that neither lens has any curvature of field. That is probably not a valid assumption. One implication of those ruler-straight MTF curves is that the AA 'cron has a flatter field than the ZM (and the Planar, in turn, probably has a flatter field than the v.4/5 'cron).
With appropriate subjects and slow black and white film I was easily able to see the wavy field curvature of my v. 4 'cron, even at f/5.6, in real photographs, in the doughnut about 1/3 out from the image center.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
The 8 elements / 5 groups +ASPH arrangement looks pretty radical for a non-macro 50mm lens. It kind of makes you wonder if the Summarits really were the last traditionally-formulated, strictly spherical lens designs we are going to see from Leica.
That would be a shame, even if there is (marginally?) better quality to be achieved with the complex designs. Look at the 90/4 Macro-Elmar, a "plain" 4/4 design that reaches max quality almost wide open. Isn't that cool? I wonder if the 4/3 Elmar-M 50 could have been further improved and produced instead of the current Summarit 50... But I guess the "doing more with less" lens design philosophy is on its way out.
That would be a shame, even if there is (marginally?) better quality to be achieved with the complex designs. Look at the 90/4 Macro-Elmar, a "plain" 4/4 design that reaches max quality almost wide open. Isn't that cool? I wonder if the 4/3 Elmar-M 50 could have been further improved and produced instead of the current Summarit 50... But I guess the "doing more with less" lens design philosophy is on its way out.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A touching faith in your monitor's pixels - no - 100% crops are enlarged internet jpgs...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I said full potential - of course you will see a difference on " lesser" sensors.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
At any rate Erwin Puts, whose opinion of this lens is exceedingly high uses Zeiss for testing.
BobYIL
Well-known
Let me admit that I appreciate you as a photographer and your efforts to enlighten us in the best way you could. You have my respect also for being objective in most of the cases. Assuming your excellent connections to Solms, how about relaying a couple of messages to them from the actual Leica users end?
“… the Zeiss ZM Planar. I tested this lens against the older 50/2 Summicron extensively before making my purchase decision, the ZM 2/50 won both optically and financially. It’s a hair sharper and doesn’t exhibit any focus shift. The coatings allow it to be about 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than the old Summicron for a given aperture and exposure histogram, too. I also preferred the way it rendered – there was just more ‘pop’ to the micro contrast, and (personally) preferable color.”
These are from the test and Ming Thein’s words; a pro-photographer as well as Leica Ambassador.
This brings a question to mind: If a $780 Planar 50 was superior to a Summicron 50 costing $2.295, then to introduce another Summicron to beat the Planar but to cost $7.195 was something to feel pride for Mr. Karbe? I would be applauding him more if he were able to beat the Planar by modifying the existing design by keeping the price the same.
Second: This is internet era; probably 99.9% of the photographs are shared through by displaying them on desktop or laptop screens. To appreciate the IQ of the Apo-Summicron we do not need to go somewhere see prints of 100cm size.. We can do it on our screens too, even up to double of the 100cm size. Below you will find some samples.
And third: Photography in our day can not (should not!) live on myths.. It’s also not the “snake oil” art of hi-end speaker cables selling for some couple of thousands suggesting “blind tests” to note the difference. Photography relies on open-your-eyes tests. IMHO, Leica should end making too much fuss about being able to squeeze-out the last 5% out of their designs with stratospheric prices but should concentrate on turning better quality products of improved reliability to fit to their name and tradition, more service stations around (like the new Leica boutiques) to stop the transfers to Solms to take weeks, if not some months (have you ever heard a Canon or Nikon shipped to Japan for service?) and if they are to intoduce some new innovative products, then these products should not make the actual Leica users scratch their heads with sour faces...
The below samples are from a camera costing $3.300 and a zoom lens (yes!), nothing fancy for 2012.
http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/048_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_jpg.jpg
http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/050_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_raw.jpg
rdeleskie
Well-known
"The below samples are from a camera costing $3.300 and a zoom lens (yes!), nothing fancy for 2012. "
Just for fun...Nikon D800E? Didn't check the exif, just basing this on the sharpness and the slight moire pattern in the fabric.
Just for fun...Nikon D800E? Didn't check the exif, just basing this on the sharpness and the slight moire pattern in the fabric.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I do scientific imaging and image analysis as a major portion of my work. Please, give me a bit (or a byte) more credit than that.
Also: <snark>what's the difference between an "internet jpg" and a plain old "jpg"?</snark>
Range-rover
Veteran
That's a nice review, I looks like both lenses are pretty close and the Zeiss is a
touch warmer and the Leica a touch cooler. I was complaining about Canon charging
$800 to $850 for there new 28mm and 24mm lenses, then I read about this lens
being 7 grand! oh baby i'd go for Zeiss on my Leica and find a nice used Leica lens.
Range
touch warmer and the Leica a touch cooler. I was complaining about Canon charging
$800 to $850 for there new 28mm and 24mm lenses, then I read about this lens
being 7 grand! oh baby i'd go for Zeiss on my Leica and find a nice used Leica lens.
Range
LCT
ex-newbie
"Beating" a CZ lens? Mr Karbe doesn't care i guess, hopefully for him. He just tried to design the best 50 possible. As far as MTF charts are concerned, it looks so far like a great success.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
100% crops are 100% crops – do you never judge anything at 100% on your computer?
Besides which Jaap, didn't you recently claim (in a LUF thread) to see something special abut the rendering of the M Monochrom in "internet JPEGs" (that, in an interesting turn of events, turned out to have been photos shot by an M9-P).
