Gotta Love G2 Glass for Resolution

[keoj]

I just processed and scanned a couple of 35mm slides (Astia). I was looking at this one photo and noticed just how well the film and 45mm lens resolved. My scanner is just okay (Canoscan FS4000). The image was slightly sharpened. The test1 is the full image, the test2 is a blow up of the small segment. It is right at the very limit of what 4000 ppi can get, the window frame was just 1-2 pixels wide. I'm not the bet at uploading images, so please forgive.

keoj

 

[Gray Fox]

A good example of what I've seen with my G2. I'll be taking mine out tomorrow to capture some of our beautiful colors in the Atl, GA area before some rain projected for Thanksgiving.

 

[mfunnell]

I do dearly love that 45mm Planar! While I have them, I've made little use of the 28mm and 90mm lenses for the G2, but if they're even in the same league as the 45 they're very good indeed. I really should use my G2 more often - the lenses are probably worth it even if I'm not that fond of the viewfinder. I bought the kit as a "travel" set, which it does a good job of, but perhaps it deserves more. (I did use the G2 for photographing a demonstration at the recent APEC conference, where it did a fine job for me.)

...Mike

 

[uhligfd]

One question: where did you focus the lens? at infinity or closer for the max DOF thing?

I think if the lens were focused at infinity, the house would be even sharper ...

But maybe I am expecting too much ... Or could you just retry this shot with infinity focus? And we would see.

 

[shadowfox]

One suggestion is to get closer to the house, wait until the light is not that harsh and re-take the picture.

 

[rich815]

The 21, 28 and 45 for the G are simply amazing, the 90 not too far behind. For color, saturation and contrast I'm not too sure anything tops them. For B&W I do prefer more classic glass from the Leica line of 1960's and 1970's lenses as I often find the G lenses too sharp and contrasty for the B&W look I desire. But the resolution of those G lenses? Phenominal.

Couple of real sharp ones I've gotten from my G2 attached....

 

[Roger Hicks]

For resolution, maybe. Not always for focus, though...

I had a G2 outfit for a year. I'd rather stick with my Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[stefan_dinu]

Same problem here. Never got used to AF in RF world.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I've used a G2 for 6 years and a G1 for 5. My favorite lenses are the 21mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, the 35mm Planar and the 45mm Planar. The 90mm Sonnar is a great lens but not a focal length I use much.

I find the optics to be superb. The 35mm tends toward the soft side when wide open but certainly usable.

I find the focus with both the G2 and G1 to be just about perfect 99% of the time. I guess that comes from use.

I have a new Zeiss Ikon RF with the 35mm Biogon. But if I heard that Jim Morrison was sitting incognito at the local bar having a beer, it would be the G1 w 35mm Planar that I would grab.

I have both a G2 and a G1. I find the G1 is my favorite using it probably 98% of the time now. Does everything the G2 does but is lighter and smaller.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find the focus with both the G2 and G1 to be just about perfect 99% of the time. I guess that comes from use.

Not really. If it hunts, it hunts, and use ain't gonna change that. And 99% isn't that good a hit ratio: about 1/10 to 1/100 as good as my manual focus over the last 40+ years. I probably put 100 rolls through the G2 in a year.

The majority of my out-of-focus pictures come down to being very tired or very drunk. Half-sober and reasonably alert, I'd back manual focus every time. Jim Morrison? M8 or MP, no question.

Cheers,

R.

 

[keoj]

A little math (I probably made a mistake), 4000 ppi of scanner resolution which is 157 pixels/mm. The center slat on the window is ~1 to 2 pixels wide (I'll call it 1.5 ). That means that the scanner/lens/film combination is resolving about 50 lp/mm (line pairs/mm). The weakest link in this three way is the scanner. I posted this not as a comparative to any other camera or AF versus MF (I have both) just thought I'd toss a compliment to the capabilities of this glass. Line pair/mm per dollar, these are very, very good lenses.

Rich813: The yellow hillside shot is a great image. The posted bridge is an excellent resolution test! Very nice!

Cheers, keoj

 

[rich815]

The first few months with my G2 it hunted all the time. Then I learned how to target and lock in the focus using my right thumb on the rear button. Since then easily 99% accuracy, and I can more accurately out-focus in speed ANYONE with a manual focus lens, hands down, especially in a rapid-fire fashion, left, right, close, far.....

Anyone who claims to be able to manually focus to pin sharp more than 99% of the time, IMO, is fooling themselves...I suggest you get out the loupe. ;-)

 

[rich815]

Rich813: The yellow hillside shot is a great image. The posted bridge is an excellent resolution test! Very nice!

Cheers, keoj

Thanks keoj!

A few more....

 

[mfunnell]

Then I learned how to target and lock in the focus using my right thumb on the rear button. Since then easily 99% accuracy, and I can more accurately out-focus in speed ANYONE with a manual focus lens, hands down, especially in a rapid-fire fashion

That accords with my experience as well, although I've had less practice so probably miss more often. My only two complaints are (a) confirming I've focused on the right thing isn't straightforward (though I'll doubtless get used to the few visual cues that are there) and (b) when I miss, I miss by a mile. When used correctly my G2 achieves excellent focus. I'll just have to work on the "used correctly" part.

...Mike

 

[jan normandale]

I probably put 100 rolls through the G2 in a year.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I'd be interested in seeing one or two of the +/- 2400 images you took with the G2.

Rich, what is the story on the photograph of the tree with the trail leading up to the top of the hill?

Cheers, J