ghost
Well-known
i bet it's number 1.
Noctilust Solved ...
- Thread starter Honus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 4K
PeterL
--
I'm going for #1 too. I don't know about the bokeh on the girls picture and I don't know about the colours on the canal picture.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
One one of those images shows any 'lens characteristics' whatsoever. Stopped-down, no one can tell what's what.
Online, yah, you're right - 'sharpness' can't accurately be demonstrated. But, some manner of 'relative sharpness' can be evident. That's what i took from the b+w Flickr pictures. There's a sharp focal point, and drastic fall-off to out of focus. The difference, with an older Lux, wouldn't appear so pronounced. My first Leica lens was a 50 Summilux (pre-aspherical). I've just purchased the new ASPH, because i want 'sharp' at f1.4.
What else is evident at 300k online is the character of the bokeh. For all the talk of aspherical lenses and their "harsh" bokeh, i have seen enough representative images online to lead me to my current lenses, a 35Cron-ASPH, and the 50Lux-ASPH.
Online, yah, you're right - 'sharpness' can't accurately be demonstrated. But, some manner of 'relative sharpness' can be evident. That's what i took from the b+w Flickr pictures. There's a sharp focal point, and drastic fall-off to out of focus. The difference, with an older Lux, wouldn't appear so pronounced. My first Leica lens was a 50 Summilux (pre-aspherical). I've just purchased the new ASPH, because i want 'sharp' at f1.4.
What else is evident at 300k online is the character of the bokeh. For all the talk of aspherical lenses and their "harsh" bokeh, i have seen enough representative images online to lead me to my current lenses, a 35Cron-ASPH, and the 50Lux-ASPH.
S
StuartR
Guest
Well, sorry I did not reply sooner, I just got to Minnesota and have been settling in. Anyway, as Honus said, these are not the ideal pictures to judge the lens quality on, but number 2 looks the most "leica" to me. If I am wrong, I am not giving you my summilux ASPH.
blakley
blakley
Steve, as everyone's already noted the differences between lenses at f/11 with few bright light sources in the frame aren't as easy to detect as when the same lenses are shot in more demanding conditions.
Still, in the sporting spirit I'll give it a go. I'd say #1 is Leica glass, #2 is the 90s AF zoom, and #3 is the 70s zoom. If #2 is Leica glass, it's something like a Summitar which gives lenticular ring bokeh and a bit of field curvature.
Still, in the sporting spirit I'll give it a go. I'd say #1 is Leica glass, #2 is the 90s AF zoom, and #3 is the 70s zoom. If #2 is Leica glass, it's something like a Summitar which gives lenticular ring bokeh and a bit of field curvature.
sunsworth
Well-known
Ok, the lenses were...
Egyptian shot - 1970s zoom
Girls - 50mm Summicron
Venice - 1990s zoom
Thanks for looking
Steve
Egyptian shot - 1970s zoom
Girls - 50mm Summicron
Venice - 1990s zoom
Thanks for looking
Steve
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
ok then, i made a fool out of myself😀
ghost
Well-known
damn, fell for the "avoid the most obvious answer" trick. :bang:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
Funny thing, I fell for the same trick as ghost. Ah, hindsight is the wisest adviser...
Well done Magus and all the others that went for no.2, good job.
Well done Magus and all the others that went for no.2, good job.
S
StuartR
Guest
The third one had distortion in the corners, and both the first and third seemed to have somewhat soft corners. The 2nd one demonstrated high sharpness at the edge of the frame and summicron-like bokeh, which is why I chose it. But whatever, I am not saying I can repeat it a hundred times.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Well at least I got the Leica, but for some reason the 70s zoom looked better to me than the 90s zoom.
Can we know exactly what were the zooms? (Just in case somone din't notice I am trying to find some sort of justification for getting the zooms wrong 😛 )
Can we know exactly what were the zooms? (Just in case somone din't notice I am trying to find some sort of justification for getting the zooms wrong 😛 )
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Hmm 4 got it right and 5 got it wrong, I guess the jury is still out on the point if there is such a thing as a Leica look.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Yes but how may of us can honestly say we can repeat the correct guess consistently.
Leica VS el-cheapo zoom, expecially when the Leica shot is wide open (or nearly) is one thing, Leica vs CV vs ZI would be a completely different thing, certainly 50 lux vs 1.5 Nokton would be extremely tough.
Leica VS el-cheapo zoom, expecially when the Leica shot is wide open (or nearly) is one thing, Leica vs CV vs ZI would be a completely different thing, certainly 50 lux vs 1.5 Nokton would be extremely tough.
sunsworth
Well-known
The 70s zoom was a cheap Vivitar 28-200 if I remember correctly - I no longer own the lens. The more recent zoom was a Sigma 28-200 autofocus zoom which I also no longer own - I sold my SLR kit after buying an M6.
As 'proper' large prints the Leica lens would be obviously the better in terms of sharpness.
Thanks for everyone who took the time to add some input.
Steve
As 'proper' large prints the Leica lens would be obviously the better in terms of sharpness.
Thanks for everyone who took the time to add some input.
Steve
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
sunsworth
Well-known
I don't see what else there is to say other than thank you 🙂
Four people got it right five people got it wrong. If everyone had just chosen an image at random then three people would have got it right and six people would have got it wrong. But the sample is too small to draw many conclusions.
If you are lucky enough to have been born with an eye to pick out the Leica 200k images then well done, you have a gift not shared by many others 🙂
Steve
Four people got it right five people got it wrong. If everyone had just chosen an image at random then three people would have got it right and six people would have got it wrong. But the sample is too small to draw many conclusions.
If you are lucky enough to have been born with an eye to pick out the Leica 200k images then well done, you have a gift not shared by many others 🙂
Steve
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
sunsworth said:
Steve ,
I did not take part because I knew one of them, but it is absolutely clear that a
200K large scan best case shows a small part of what the lens really is.
The pics in your set were quite benevolently chosen, it is no prob tho to make any expert fail in determing a source if you really want him to fail with a monitor pic.
Best,
Bertram
Best
bertram
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
