proenca
Proenca
Dear all,
I have a question about focusing and apertures, hope it doesnt sound too dumb
Now.. in my SLR days... apart from available light and weight, a faster lens was always desirable, because for example take a Canon 24 2.8 and a Canon 24 1,4. At 2,8 the 1,4 version was super sharp, wereas the 2,8 maximum aperture lens was struggling to tack it sharp wide open.. sounds obvious
But is there such a difference on Leica optics ? For example, I have a 35 f2 ASPH.. and I'm contemplating a 35 1.4 ASPH.. will the 1.4 be much sharper than the F2 counterpart at F2 ?
Im still new at Rangefinder usage, so much of my photos are OOF ( due to user error - now no excuses for AF this and that , since sometimes I block the small window that brightens up the focusing patch and therefore I think its focused, weras its not
) , so I started to think, that with 1.4 available, the focusing plane will be much more critical therefore OOF pictures will occur more often.
Because the sharp are from a 35 F2 ASPH @ F2 or from a 35 F1.4 ASPH@ F2 should be exactly the same no ?
Hope i didnt confuse many people and could make some sense
I have a question about focusing and apertures, hope it doesnt sound too dumb
Now.. in my SLR days... apart from available light and weight, a faster lens was always desirable, because for example take a Canon 24 2.8 and a Canon 24 1,4. At 2,8 the 1,4 version was super sharp, wereas the 2,8 maximum aperture lens was struggling to tack it sharp wide open.. sounds obvious
But is there such a difference on Leica optics ? For example, I have a 35 f2 ASPH.. and I'm contemplating a 35 1.4 ASPH.. will the 1.4 be much sharper than the F2 counterpart at F2 ?
Im still new at Rangefinder usage, so much of my photos are OOF ( due to user error - now no excuses for AF this and that , since sometimes I block the small window that brightens up the focusing patch and therefore I think its focused, weras its not
Because the sharp are from a 35 F2 ASPH @ F2 or from a 35 F1.4 ASPH@ F2 should be exactly the same no ?
Hope i didnt confuse many people and could make some sense
Film dino
David Chong
You may wish to read Puts on this-
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html
Calling Magus...
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html
Calling Magus...
waileong
Well-known
Sharpness depends on many factors, incl. handholding steadiness and correct focus. Thus at handheld speeds, I doubt you'll find any sharpness differences between two great Leica lenses.
At 1.4, the DOF of the 35 mm is still quite acceptable, so there's no reason to believe it will be much harder to get sharper pictures than at F2.
Yes, the DOF of a 35/2 at F2 and a 35/1.4 at F2 are the same.
At 1.4, the DOF of the 35 mm is still quite acceptable, so there's no reason to believe it will be much harder to get sharper pictures than at F2.
Yes, the DOF of a 35/2 at F2 and a 35/1.4 at F2 are the same.
sigma4ever
MF
I agree with waileong. You wouldn't be gaining much from this move. If your photos aren't sharp, it is most likely due to camera shake caused by long exposures. If you are doing daytime outdoor shots you should be fine. You are already at a very wide f stop. and by increasing that much, you would not gain anything. What you should do is either use a tripod more often or get faster film. If you're afraid of grain, (shame on you if you are
) then you could (I hate to say it) try using a flash
. It's all up to you.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've always heard images from the Lux at f/2.0 and the Summicron at f/2.0 will be almost indistinguishable, and at f/2.8 it'd be a tossup. I'm told they render differently, but I only have the Cron ASPH and no first hand experience in the Lux.
I have no worries about shooting my Cron wide open under any conditions!
I have no worries about shooting my Cron wide open under any conditions!
Share: