Ronald M
Veteran
Pre asph Summilux will bend lines line crazy.
Summicrons will not and neither will either 2.8 Elmar.
I was shocked at Nikkors when I got my digi Nikkons. With the exception of the 28 2.8 that focuses to .2 meter, All the 50`s and shorter have barrel distortion. I had no idea how spoiled I was with Leica. Fortunately I never sold any of it.
Summicrons will not and neither will either 2.8 Elmar.
I was shocked at Nikkors when I got my digi Nikkons. With the exception of the 28 2.8 that focuses to .2 meter, All the 50`s and shorter have barrel distortion. I had no idea how spoiled I was with Leica. Fortunately I never sold any of it.
martin s
Well-known
I skimmed my negatives really quick and found this example - it was scanned with a Epson v500, the negative is as far as I can tell perfectly flat. It was the 3rd out of 6 frames, so pretty much in the middle. It was shot with the 50mm f1.4 pre-ASPH 'Lux, which imo doesn't distort a lot (I never noticed, and I'm picky about those kind of things).
This is the original scan:
This is what's visible in Photoshops Distortion Correction 'Filter', it can be fixed with a value of +1.
Finally:
Most important of all - it doesn't matter whatsoever.
martin
This is the original scan:
This is what's visible in Photoshops Distortion Correction 'Filter', it can be fixed with a value of +1.
Finally:
Most important of all - it doesn't matter whatsoever.
martin
Attachments
ferider
Veteran
Martin, good examples (and a nice photo, too).
Puts does quantify distortion of the various Leica lenses here:
http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1754.pdf
Mike: the 35/1.4 pre-asph is actually very clean. Turns out the 35/1.4 ASPH distorts more (around 1.5% ?)
The Elmar-M and pre-asph Summilux are almost on par, with the Elmar seaming a bit worse. The worst Leica 50 seams to be the Noctilux.
Roland.
Puts does quantify distortion of the various Leica lenses here:
http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1754.pdf
Mike: the 35/1.4 pre-asph is actually very clean. Turns out the 35/1.4 ASPH distorts more (around 1.5% ?)
The Elmar-M and pre-asph Summilux are almost on par, with the Elmar seaming a bit worse. The worst Leica 50 seams to be the Noctilux.
Roland.
katgut@earthlink.net
Established
My Canon FD 50 1.4 also exhibits barrel distortion--more than my 50 1.8.
sanmich
Veteran
distortion test
distortion test
Ok, I really needed to know....
The canon 1.4, besides being a great, fast, sharp, cheap lens, is a distorting king. I ran a quick and dirty test against what was available.
Sometimes the test was not even fair for the contender (wides), but the 50 canon 1.4, was still the worse...
Fasten your seat belt please...
Canon 1.4
distortion test
Ok, I really needed to know....
The canon 1.4, besides being a great, fast, sharp, cheap lens, is a distorting king. I ran a quick and dirty test against what was available.
Sometimes the test was not even fair for the contender (wides), but the 50 canon 1.4, was still the worse...
Fasten your seat belt please...
Canon 1.4
Attachments
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
That's it
even the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 showed no objectionable distortion.
The winner is clearly the canon. Too bad, I really loved the thing...
even the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 showed no objectionable distortion.
The winner is clearly the canon. Too bad, I really loved the thing...
nikku
Well-known
You ever used the zuiko 50/3.5 macro? It gives a very flat field, which makes sense because it's often used for copy work.
Michael, thanks for the tests! If the Canon was the "winner" in the distortion wars then the Cron DR was the clear loser! I am surprised to detect at bit even in the Planar.
MaxElmar
Well-known
With regards to distortion, if you want to see truly perfect, test a pinhole image against anything...
sanmich
Veteran
I think you are right, although it is hard to rank the others.
The DR seems excellent and the Planar shows some level of distortion.
I can't be sure, but both the hexanons presents a very low level, if at all.
The VC 25 is pretty amazing too...
Maybe 1.4 IS something important regarding distortion. It was the fastest of the bunch after all.
ferider
Veteran
Interesting, thanks Michael. Aren't you glad you got the 35/2 M-Hex ? 
I am guessing the Canon distortion is due to 6 elements only (normally at that speed, there are 7). You gain flare resistance with fewer elements ....
Doug, the ZM Planar numbers (confirmed by Michael's test) surprised me too. It distorts noticeably more than the ZM Sonnar.
I am guessing the Canon distortion is due to 6 elements only (normally at that speed, there are 7). You gain flare resistance with fewer elements ....
Doug, the ZM Planar numbers (confirmed by Michael's test) surprised me too. It distorts noticeably more than the ZM Sonnar.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Interesting, thanks Michael. Aren't you glad you got the 35/2 M-Hex ?
I am guessing the Canon distortion is due to 6 elements only (normally at that speed, there are 7). You gain flare resistance with fewer elements ....
Doug, the ZM Planar numbers (confirmed by Michael's test) surprised me too. It distorts noticeably more than the ZM Sonnar.
Roland, I have to say that this past year, I have done some gear change that I'm really happy with, and got two really excellent lenses:
The M hex 35 (do you have one?) and the DR (Thanks again for this one!
)
ferider
Veteran
Don't have the M-Hex, Michael, but have often considered it. I believe the CV 35/1.7 Ultron is derived from the M-hex 35/2. That one I had and loved.
Roland.
Roland.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Taken with M3 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ f 8/11
Although the Noct has severe barrel distortion wide open
at 8/11 Gregory