RF lenses are better than SLR lenses?

[Rusifizio]

Friends! I am new here and may be this question has been aroused but i haven't found. 🙂
So is it true that RF lenses are better in optical quality?
I have Konica auto s2. Anyone has experience?
🙂

 

[Ash]

I wouldn't say they're better. But they can perform better under certain circumstances.

Technically the glass is smaller, so there is less light to focus, so it won't be nearly as pin-sharp as, say, a super HUGE piece of glass like a large or medium format lens. A high quality Leitz lens will perform better than a cheap grimey lens, however.


That's my thoughts.

 

[PhotoJim]

Wide angle lenses should be better on a rangefinder camera. They require much simpler optical formulas because there is no mirror box in the way. Most wide angle lenses on rangefinder cameras have rear elements that go quite deep into the camera. (The Jupiter-12 almost touches the film.) SLRs require a so-called inverted telephoto design to circumvent this problem, which adds optical elements and complexity, increasing flare and distortion. A good SLR lens will probably be nearly the equal of a good rangefinder lens, but it will never be better if both lenses have similarly optimized designs.

 

[ray_g]

So is it true that RF lenses are better in optical quality?
🙂

Hello, and welcome. The short answer is no. In fact, many modern lenses are available in both mounts (CV, Leica for instance). There may be some differences in shooting styles, lack of mirror slap, etc, but the lenses having inherently better optical quality - I don't believe that's true.

 

[VinceC]

No.
It was true in 1960. Back then, good wide-angle lenses required mirror-lockup, eliminating the utility of an SLR. Since that time, SLR manufacturers (including Leitz) have poured a great deal of science and effort into making high-quality wide-angle lenses. Probably 99 percent of the imagery you see today comes from SLRs, many of them using very wide lenses.

It is simpler to design a wide-angle lens for a rangefinder. That doesn't mean the more complex SLR lens -- using modern coatings and modern glass pouring techniques -- will be inferior. Any good really wide angle lens ... like a 21mm or wider ... is already very complex anyway, using 8 or more elements.

Probably the best wide-angle lens I've ever used is the 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, which cleverly used a floating element to overcome some of the problems associated with SLR lenses.

Lots of people strongly believe there's a rangefinder advantage to wides. It's possible they are correct, but I've never seen it in practical use, and I've never seen a side-by-side comparison.

 

[ampguy]

yes, i have experience.

yes, i have experience.

RF lenses might be better at price appreciation, but never better at objective optics quality at any length.

Friends! I am new here and may be this question has been aroused but i haven't found. 🙂
So is it true that RF lenses are better in optical quality?
I have Konica auto s2. Anyone has experience?
🙂

 

[flipflop]

I would think they could be sharper due to the lack of a mirror and be able to produce lenses that get closer to the film plane.

Then again the Contax RTS III has a vaccume back that is supposed to keep the film flatter creating sharper photos...there are so many variables that is really hard to judge. I do know the lens on your Konica is damn sharp especially for the money!

Best of luck and welcome to the board!

 

[rxmd]

I guess what's true is that wide angle lenses are easier to focus accurately on a rangefinder than on an SLR.

Philipp

 

[pvdhaar]

I doubt that nowadays even RF wide angle lenses are inherently better than those for SLRs. The retrofocal design required to clear the mirrorbox does complicate matters a bit, but... it also introduces freedom to correct a number of lens characteristics that typify RF lenses. Most prominent is light fall-off. The increased distance of the back element to the film plane gives a more even exposure. Especially for digital cameras that depend on light hitting the sensor straight (e.g. dSLRs and the RD-1), this is crucial. Here you'll find that SLR wide angles outperform RF wide angles..

 

[rover]

I agree, whatever difference there was no longer exists. There are advantages of both, and I would think differences in character from one manufacturer's lenses to another, but technically, perhaps no definitive "best".

Is Leica 35/1.4 Summilux Asph better than the Canon 35/1.4 L? It sure is a lot smaller, but better? It may draw an image with different qualities, but better? I think you can find great optics in every modern system offered right now.

 

[rvaubel]

Smaller, not better. Thats the crucial difference. The whole concept of a compact, non-obtrrusive camera system, depends on lenses that can be designed with a short backfocus distance. I can carry a camera body and 5 lenses in a kit that is smaller than my Canon DSLR w/ 16-35 F2.8.
Plus the optical quality tends to be better in the focal lengths that rangefinders exel at namely 28-75mm. For longer focal lengths, your better off with a SLR anyway. For shorter focal lengths, the lenses are still more compact, although need to be of the semi-retrofocus design to control vignetting.

Rex

 

[Finder]

Define "better." And specify which lenses. A cheap zoom is not going to hold a match against an expensive prime no matter what type of camera it is on.

 

[Finder]

Technically the glass is smaller, so there is less light to focus, so it won't be nearly as pin-sharp as, say, a super HUGE piece of glass like a large or medium format lens.

The entrance pupil has notihng to do with how sharp a lens is nor how much light reaches the image plane. Both those are related to the effective aperture and the quality of the lens. The reason medium and large format appear sharper has more to do with film size.

 

[photogdave]

I think it's fair to say that MANY rf lenses perform better than MANY SLR lenses at faster aperatures, but I think there are too many variables to make a generalization.

 

[jaapv]

Is Leica 35/1.4 Summilux Asph better than the Canon 35/1.4 L? It sure is a lot smaller, but better? It may draw an image with different qualities, but better? I think you can find great optics in every modern system offered right now.

`
I don't know about better, but I do know I'd take the Summilux, given a choice🙄

 

[BrianShaw]

(snip) The reason medium and large format appear sharper has more to do with film size.

also, perhaps, the greater likelihood that MF and LF is shot on tripod.