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

[David Hughes]

Hi,

In the last year or so I've seen just one photographer carrying a tripod, so I doubt if people really pay much attention to such things as lens quality since no tripod means a good chance of spoiling a decent lenses' performance.

I've also noticed a lot of people like 400ASA film and I reckon that means f/16 is used a lot of the time and that, in my opinion, spoils the performance of most decent lenses.

There's other things coming into it, take the funny 16 rule of thumb; I think the sun at 10 in the morning in January, March and June or July varies a lot both in intensity and colour. I've not seen it mentioned by anyone when discussing exposure. So there's another variable coming into what ought to be a serious test of lenses.

As I see it there are so many variables coming into things for "normal" photography that you might just as well use a P&S and handle it carefully, after choosing it and the film carefully. I was starting to do a list of the variables but gave up as it spiralled out of control...

FWIW, the club organising the tests had the right idea but where are we to get a decent 25ASA slide film and lab. these days?

Regards, David

 

[Ansel]

Historically I don't think Leica was necessarily about the best lenses, but rather about a small compact camera system you could take anywhere. The lenses were "good enough".

 

[Turtle]

Agreed.

Leica MTFs and Putz's own tests show the cheaper 35mm Summarit-M is slightly sharper at f5.6 and f8 than the 35mm Summicron-M asp. A good copy of the 35mm CV Pancake II gives both a run for their money, but finding a good copy is not as simple as with Zeiss and Leica.

Very expensive lenses tend to be expensive for one or more of following reasons:

They are fast.
They are very sharp at wider apertures.
They are very compact.

Just looking at resolution for a moment.... the 35mm FE Sonnar and the 55 f 1.8 for the Sony A7/R contain aspherical elements largely because of wide aperture performance, where both are spectacular. In the case of the 35mm Sonnar, however, my 30 year old $50 Canon FDn 35mm f 2.8 performs a tiny weeny bit better at the edges at f8 and f11.... but at f2.8 and f4 the Sonnar is dramatically better than the old Canon. For travel, take the Sonnar, but shoot landscapes and it becomes a gigantic waste of money.

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I guess when I wrote "exactly", I was thinking of a tangible proof... 😱
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

Dear Juan,

Many decent lenses would probably be diffraction limited at f/8, so there's your objective answer. But they'd differ in contrast, distortion and overall look. These differences might or might not be perceptible, depending on the print (printing medium, size, skill of printer...)

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

Agreed.

Leica MTFs and Putz's own tests show the cheaper 35mm Summarit-M is slightly sharper at f5.6 and f8 than the 35mm Summicron-M asp. A good copy of the 35mm CV Pancake II gives both a run for their money, but finding a good copy is not as simple as with Zeiss and Leica.

Very expensive lenses tend to be expensive for one or more of following reasons:

They are fast.
They are very sharp at wider apertures.
They are very compact.

And I'll add a fourth reason: (and you touched on this) that very expensive lenses tend to be more consistent across the production run... which means more testing, much tighter quality control, and more are removed from the assembly line for QC failure... all of which drive up the price of the lenses that go out the door. Even the FSU lenses have some really excellent copies out there at bargain basement prices. You may just have to go through a dozen or more of them before you find that "one." Not so with the Leitz/Leica offerings. And I have to say that the CV quality control is quite good now as well.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, thanks everyone for the comments... It seems by f/8 things are more equalized than what I was thinking...
Thank you semilog for the precise information...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[David Hughes]

And I'll add a fourth reason: (and you touched on this) that very expensive lenses tend to be more consistent across the production run... which means more testing, much tighter quality control, and more are removed from the assembly line for QC failure... all of which drive up the price of the lenses that go out the door. Even the FSU lenses have some really excellent copies out there at bargain basement prices. You may just have to go through a dozen or more of them before you find that "one." Not so with the Leitz/Leica offerings. And I have to say that the CV quality control is quite good now as well.

Hi,

This has not been my experience.

I have scrapped Leica Lenses and have yet to do so with an ex USSR one. One day I'll count them all to show how many good ones I have.

However, I can't see the point of it as not one of them was bought new: I expect that applies to most ex USSR lenses mentioned by people in these posts. Perhaps the previous owners care and the age of the lens has more to do with it than QC of 60 or so years ago.

Also, I can't help noticing in the Leica threads that people have problems with Leica lenses and bodies. But they are also old and second hand in most cases.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Well, thanks everyone for the comments... It seems by f/8 things are more equalized than what I was thinking...
Thank you semilog for the precise information...
Cheers,
Juan

Hi,

FWIW, I'd say that by f/11 things are equally as bad for them all...

Regards, David

 

[mfogiel]

FWIW already by f 2.8 the 35/2 Biogon is sharper than any Leica 35mm lens, old or new, and this continues through f 8.0, but I would say this mainly does not matter in practical film photography.

 

[Turtle]

Some manufacturers have QC that is in keeping with their prices and others not so much. While mechanical issues may exist with new Leica lenses, obvious decentering or other glaring optical issues are pretty well unheard of. Mechanical issues are usually repairable and rarely stop you shooting completely, but the irritation of having a second or third severely decentered lens in a row is infuriating. Such has been my experience with Sony Zeiss lenses (built by Sony), in contrast to the Cosina manufactured Zeiss lenses we associate with most of the ZM line, which have been optically (reliably) spot on. Mechanical design issues resulting in 'the wobbles' are a different matter.

Canon QC has been very good indeed for a major manufactuer, and Sony beyond terrible (with lenses). Others end up somewhere in between. Sony Zeiss lenses are perhaps the best example I can think of where you combine some of the worst QC known to humankind with high prices. While the designs are optically superb when assembled correctly, it doesn't count for much when they aren't (and most aren't)!

FWIW, Canon QC seems to show up in their bodies too. I think it was Lens Rentals in the US that had the 5D III as their least repaired body and the D800 as the most. I've had a couple of bad Canon lenses, but its a amongst many lenses (new and old). I'd had more dudds on my first Sony two Sony lenses model than in fifteen years with Canon! I also agree about CV. I think they have learnt a lot from working with Zeiss and their most recent new designs that have appeared only M mount lenses are much more consistent than the old screwmounts, where the probability of obtaining a spot on 21mm or 25mm Leica screw mount lens was fairly slim. Even the 21mm and 25mm P lenses are pretty inconsistent, but that was an old design in a new mount.