How good, exactly, can a medium price 35 be when stopped down?

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
7:42 PM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
Well, the fact is I don't own a current line 35 by Leica to compare, and we often read all good lenses are more or less the same when stopped down, and it's commonly said the premium price is paid for the performance we get with lenses when used wide open...
I wonder how do medium price 35mm lenses (Zeiss, Konica, Canon, Voigtlander, pre-aspherical Leica ones) compare to an aspherical summicron or summilux when all of them are by f/5.6 and f/8...
I would imagine modern Leica lenses must be optically better even if we compare several brands and models stopped down... Aren't they by some margin?
This could be considered subjective, but with a good sensor for testing, it could be considered really objective too... From field flatness to center and corner sharpness and microcontrast, I wonder which lenses by which brands can be considered optically as good as aspherical Leica 35mm lenses... Would it be possible to have a list including the best 35s ever for shooting by f8?
Thanks everyone for sharing opinions and thoughts...
Cheers,
Juan
 
To me CV 35 2.5 PII is the best. In terms of IQ for B/W and color, size, build and price. It delivers right at 2.5, I don't have to close it down.
But I'm talking strictly about film, no sensors for testing.
For digital you need as modern as possible, for best results. IMO.
 
Dear Juan,

"Exactly"?

What are your criteria?

At f/8 I'd expect bugger all difference in (say) 12x16 inch/30x40 cm prints from any half-decent lens -- but I'd also expect pixel peepers to find differences.

Cheers,

R.
 
Your question is quite subjective.

Presuming that you're considering "sharpness" (whatever that means) as you're discussing stopping down to f/8, I'd say that comparing "modern" lenses, there'd be precious few souls who could tell you what lens took what photo. However, "sharpness" (resolution, etc. etc.) while easy to measure and tout in advertising, is probably one of the least important attributes of a modern lens; most all modern glass, even in less expensive lenses, have amazing "sharpness" when compared with older designs.
 
For what it's worth, I have recently been scanning my negatives from the early 60s. As a poor college student in Chicago (winter of '62-'63), I had walked into Altman's Camera, and Selwyn Schwartz suggested I buy their first Konica FP, saying I would not be sorry; it had a Hexanon / Hexar 52 mm / 1:1.4 lens. Based on my recent scans, comparing to my later Leica negatives, I wish I had that lens and a good camera to use it on today. All these years I would never have expected I would say this: from the new scan results, with the exception of the negatives produced twenty plus years later with a 50mm Noctilux, I will pit those Hexanon produced negatives against those made with any much more costly and highly rated lenses I've ever owned, especially at f4 and beyond.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Juan,

"Exactly"?

What are your criteria?

At f/8 I'd expect bugger all difference in (say) 12x16 inch/30x40 cm prints from any half-decent lens -- but I'd also expect pixel peepers to find differences.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

I guess when I wrote "exactly", I was thinking of a tangible proof... :eek:
I mean one with an acceptable truth... One that's capable of convincing at least some of us forum members...
What if the same prepared scene with details was (were?) done with an aspherical 35 Leica at f/8, and then with a pre-aspherical Leica, then an older Leica 35, then a Biogon-C, then a Voigtlander and a Canon...
Perhaps for Tri-X in Rodinal, all of them would be close at f/8, but maybe not for ISO100 film in a fine grain developer...
Not that the highest sharpness is necessary always, but if a lens is needed for f/8 most of the time, why spend more if there's no difference at all?
I can't know, by myself, if there's a difference or not at f8... But I think some forum members can... Or know already...
Cheers,
Juan
 
I thought 35mm lenses were mostly used stopped down anyway... you know, f16 and set to hyper focal distance, ready for action.
 
Other than some flare if pointing near or at the sun, I think the 3 element MS Optical Super Triplet Perar is quite a performer. It starts at f/3.5 and I typically shoot it at that, 5.6 or 8. It's not perfect, but for a lens costing less than $800 that's light and compact, it's great. Center performance is great, corners could be better.

Some shots:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=triplet&ss=2&ct=0&mt=all&w=78552143@N00&adv=1

And you might be interested in this comparison of 35s:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...part-2-close-up-and-wide-open-by-brad-husick/
 
About 15 years ago, in careful tripod tests with Velvia and Kodachrome, I found that the Nikkor 35/2 AIS is generally indistinguishable from the Summilux ASPH 35/1.4 from f/5.6 onward. Both test targets and real subjects were used.

At wider apertures the Summilux was much better than the Nikkor. At f/2 there was really no contest. The Summilux was much, much better. But from f/8-16, I couldn't pick the slides out on the light table or under inspection with a microscope. And I was hard-pressed to see a difference at 5.6.
 
LSiemens said:
For what it's worth, I have recently been scanning my negatives from the early 60s. As a poor college student in Chicago (winter of '62-'63), I had walked into Altman's Camera, and Selwyn Schwartz suggested I buy their first Konica FP, saying I would not be sorry; it had a Hexanon / Hexar 52 mm / 1:1.4 lens. Based on my recent scans, comparing to my later Leica negatives, I wish I had that lens and a good camera to use it on today. All these years I would never have expected I would say this: from the new scan results, with the exception of the negatives produced twenty plus years later with a 50mm Noctilux, I will pit those Hexanon produced negatives against those made with any much more costly and highly rated lenses I've ever owned, especially at f4 and beyond.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. And not unexpected. I have a lot of what are considered "best" lenses now. None are Leica products. I find I pick what is "best for a particular thing" instead. One is best for low light wide open (Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM) and closeups. One is best for high resolution but fast speed, in the smaller frame sized of the APS-C sensor (Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8) One is best for the color rendering and bokeh (Jupiter 3). Etc....etc...

To the OP, no one lens is best. For any Leica lens you pick, people can find a different maker's lens outdoes it in some category. Best to an engineer denotes no aberrations ("anastigmat"), a flat field, not prone to flare (coated), high contrast, etc. etc. That may not be best for an artist shooting a particular subject. I have 50 or 60 lenses (I shoot a lot of large format too), and use each one to give different things.
 
Sharpness is only one criteria.

There is contrast, tone rendering, and a few other criteria.

I too bought from Selwyn at Altman`s and tried for decades to match the wonderful tones I could see in the paper sample books in the photo stores. Around 1980 a neighbor Loaned me his M3 an Leica lenses.
By golly, without changing film, developer or anything my prints would reproduce what I saw in the sample books.

I also belonged to a camera club and one event was to shoot specific subjects same time, same place, and club furnished film and processing to keep everything even. Your slide had your name on the back side.
Well the naysayers had them all on the light table and noticed certain ones looked far better. When flipping them over, the contrasty color saturated ones were from the Leica owners. He also traded in his Pentax gear.

Today I have Nikon pro digitals with all the new G lenses, and some older lenses, M8 & M9 and modern Leica glass. Leica is better than old and so is Nikon, but the gap is narrowing.

So buy what you want. Almost all lenses from major manufactures are acceptable.
 
Mine is a 40mm and I use it at whatever aperture Is desired . If the point is that one does not need an expensive 35mm lens to make nice photographs I fully agree!

Cheers!
 
semilog said:
About 15 years ago, in careful tripod tests with Velvia and Kodachrome, I found that the Nikkor 35/2 AIS is generally indistinguishable from the Summilux ASPH 35/1.4 from f/5.6 onward. Both test targets and real subjects were used.

At wider apertures the Summilux was much better than the Nikkor. At f/2 there was really no contest. The Summilux was much, much better. But from f/8-16, I couldn't pick the slides out on the light table or under inspection with a microscope. And I was hard-pressed to see a difference at 5.6.
Click to expand...

And that was comparing a retrofocus wide angle with a lens that could be designed without consideration for a swinging mirror. I'm thinking that would give Leica more freedom in design of the 35mm f1.4 Lux.
 
Well the biogon 35/2 will be the best at f/8 or f/11 of the under 1k lenses, and maybe the best period, in terms of resolution and lack of distortion. I think the colors are good too.

It certainly spanks the CV 35/1.4 and 2.5 at f/8, though you have to look close.

The C-biogon is close and many prefer it's rendering.

I looked into the issue because I shoot alot of long landscapes. At first I thought the CVs were fine. Then I started looking close.
 
If you want, you can find differences between any lenses.
Are these relevant for using the lens is a different question.
Splitting hairs over these differences will just lead to arguments over personal preferences.
Any lens (even older, pre asph.) properly adjusted to a camera body with the RF mechanism in specs will produce pretty decent results.
Usually it's the user limiting the achievement of perfection and not the equipment ;)
 
uhoh7 said:
Well the biogon 35/2 will be the best at f/8 or f/11 of the under 1k lenses, and maybe the best period, in terms of resolution and lack of distortion. I think the colors are good too.

It certainly spanks the CV 35/1.4 and 2.5 at f/8, though you have to look close.
Click to expand...

If "you have to look close" then it is not a "spanking." Pretty much by definitition.

My guess is that -- in a blinded test of prints from images shot at f/8 -- you could not reliably guess which was which, unless the subject matter made geometric distortion really obvious.

At wider apertures there are real differences that may or may not matter.

Interactions of lenses with digital sensors may make for larger differences, but these differences will vary from one sensor to another, and will not be intrinsic to the lens.
 
Personally, I didn't find my Summicron any better than my CV lens wide open, let alone stopped down. I think you can find people to find a difference in anything, particularly if they're emotionally attached to finding something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom