pundit
Established
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_4/m8part4.html
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_5/m8_5.html
He is more eloquent than I
- I should get my Lenses back from Leica this week (sent them for 6-bit coding) and hopefully my M8 too ... but I was told I should have them before Christmas too.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_5/m8_5.html
He is more eloquent than I
- I should get my Lenses back from Leica this week (sent them for 6-bit coding) and hopefully my M8 too ... but I was told I should have them before Christmas too.
pundit
Established
Punch line for part 5:
Vignetting
A full study of the vignetting behaviour needs another article. For now I can conclude that the film based versions have an advantage here, specifically if we take into consideration that the M8 has a reduced angle of view and should have a natural advantage. My measurements indicate that a 1.4/35 mm ASPH lens has more vignetting on the M8 than the Summilux 1.4/50mm ASPH has on an M7 loaded with film. Both lenses have roughly the same angle of view on the M8 and M7.
This result is typical for all the other lenses tested above. In all cases the film based behaviour was better than the sensor based behaviour. And the M8 has a restricted angle of view. The new microlens design is really needed, but even this construct cannot cope fully with the light fall off at the extreme corners.
Conclusion
The smaller angle of view of the M8 implies that a lens, designed for the full 35mm format will not be asked to bring into effect the extreme corners and edges. So most lenses will operate with a safety margin and the results above do testify this effect. In a sense the M8 does reduce the inherent differences between lenses, as the effects of the problematic edges and corners can be neglected.. Differences do exist as can be inferred from the examples shown above.
My earlier conclusion that in this digital age the optical designs should be concentrated on vignetting, flatness of field and reduced astigmatism and flare wide open and even performance over the image field are substantiated. The ZM lenses from Zeiss have done this already and the comparison between the ZM 35 and the Summicron 35 is an indication of this changing battleground.
Vignetting
A full study of the vignetting behaviour needs another article. For now I can conclude that the film based versions have an advantage here, specifically if we take into consideration that the M8 has a reduced angle of view and should have a natural advantage. My measurements indicate that a 1.4/35 mm ASPH lens has more vignetting on the M8 than the Summilux 1.4/50mm ASPH has on an M7 loaded with film. Both lenses have roughly the same angle of view on the M8 and M7.
This result is typical for all the other lenses tested above. In all cases the film based behaviour was better than the sensor based behaviour. And the M8 has a restricted angle of view. The new microlens design is really needed, but even this construct cannot cope fully with the light fall off at the extreme corners.
Conclusion
The smaller angle of view of the M8 implies that a lens, designed for the full 35mm format will not be asked to bring into effect the extreme corners and edges. So most lenses will operate with a safety margin and the results above do testify this effect. In a sense the M8 does reduce the inherent differences between lenses, as the effects of the problematic edges and corners can be neglected.. Differences do exist as can be inferred from the examples shown above.
My earlier conclusion that in this digital age the optical designs should be concentrated on vignetting, flatness of field and reduced astigmatism and flare wide open and even performance over the image field are substantiated. The ZM lenses from Zeiss have done this already and the comparison between the ZM 35 and the Summicron 35 is an indication of this changing battleground.