Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

resolution dilema
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: resolution dilema Reply with quote
I need to get something sharp. I have my sigma 17-70 which is a good walk about lens but I need something that will cut it when it comes to 100% scrutiny. I guess my budget is ?100-?150 and as such I guess I am looking at the summicron 50/2 or the contax 50 1.7 (I need to get an adapter too) I have found a sumicron at ?99 with an couple of small scratches to the front and rear element but I can return the lens with in 10 days if I dont like it. but for that money I can get a mint contax 50 1.7. So what do you reckon? should I be looking at other lenses? I know there is always this "which is the best" question and the answer is "depends what you mean" I want the highest resolution and contrast without ANY CA, I am not so bothered by edge distortion, and Of course good bokeh. not asking for much am I Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Highest resolution = Leica without any doubt

For the contrast, it depends. Leica Summicrons are not so contrasty. The Elmarits have usually the higher contrast in the Leica lenses.

Zeiss lenses are famous for their "micro-contrast", which I don't know if it's what you are looking for, anyway look at my MFL meeting day 4 thread, the photos taken with the Hollywood Distagon have plenty of micro-contrast, which is the characteristic that is accounted for much of the "3D effect".

Overall if sharpness is the goal I am sure that you will like a Leica lens better than a Zeiss one.

But if the absolute resolution/contrast is your goal, you don't want a scratched lens. Scratches (I mean real scratches, not the tiny cleaning marks) do affect the image quality and especially the sharpness and the contrast.
Drop that scratched Summicron, you can find other Summicron-R 50 for that price, that are not scratched. Maybe you will have to wait a couple of weeks or so, but finally another good Summicron deal will present to you.

In any case, by the description of what you are looking for, I am sure you will be more pleased by an Elmarit lens than by a Summicron lens.
Summicrons tend to be "dreamy" wide open, while Elmarits are sharp at all stops.

I would restrict your choice to one of the following lenses:

- 35mm Elmarit-R
- 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R
- 90mm Elmarit-R
- 135mm Elmarit-R

You can't go wrong with any of these, especially if you are able to get the latest versions.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Orio I will take a look at some more elmarits. I am not sure what you mean by micro contrast though do you have an example?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:
Thanks Orio I will take a look at some more elmarits. I am not sure what you mean by micro contrast though do you have an example?


Here's a discussion about Micro-Contrast that explains it well:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002lb8

Here's a specific article about the Zeiss lenses (they call it contrast but what they are talking about is precisely the micro-contrast):

http://www.nadir.it/ob-fot/contax_eyes.htm

And here's my pictures with the Distagon 2/28 that show plenty of micro-contrast and 3D effect:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=1241&start=0

For a wider discussion about the 3D-effect, read this LONG and very interesting thread:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another image I shot, this time with the Distagon 1.4/35, that shows exactly the point, an image with a high micro-contrast and a low macro-contrast:



PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So the foreground is exceedingly sharp and the distance is softer? what aperture did you have in that last one Orio my eyes are hurting I think that lens out resolves my eyes!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:
So the foreground is exceedingly sharp and the distance is softer? what aperture did you have in that last one Orio my eyes are hurting I think that lens out resolves my eyes!


In a way, yes. The closer objects benefit of larger glass space and there you can notice that in the finer resolution, the image is contrasted. But If you look at the whole image, there is no pure white and little pure black. The image as a whole is not contrasted. Larger colour areas are smooth.

The aperture was f/4 I think.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
how do you think the contax 85 1.4 would compare to the elmarit 90? The adapters for these cost a small fortune themselves. I think I may be able to buy more contax than I would leica, But if the resolution difference is big (bothe at f5.6)then maybe still looking at leica.... I think I need to shift some redundant lenses...


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:
how do you think the contax 85 1.4 would compare to the elmarit 90?


They are completely different lenses. Or at least I repeat this to myself in order to have an excuse to keep both Wink

No seriously they really are different like night from day. Elmarit is totally sharp from wide open so much that it takes a trained eye to see the difference from stopped down. In this respect it is a unique lens as I think no one other lenses except Leica are really like that.

The Elmarit also compared to the Planar has a nicer highlight bokeh.

The saturation is excellent in both lenses, but the Elmarit (like all Leicas) has a slightly colder tone compared to the Planar. This is something common to all lenses of these brands. Zeiss lenses tend to saturate more the warm colours, Leicas saturate more the blues and greens.

The Planar has a much narrower depth of field and is therefore most and foremost a portrait lens. At full aperture the in focus area is really the narrowest I have ever seen in a lens. Stopped down, it becomes as sharp as the Elmarit, but the Elmarit still has a superior resolution. For these reasons the Elmarit is the ideal tele lens for general use: landscapes, still life, action in full sunlight.
The Planar really shines in the portraits, but of course when stopped down it can also do the same things as the Elmarit, while the Elmarit, at full aperture, does not have that silky and sexy smoothness of the Planar, and so it is inferior as portrait lens.

I know that you want the sharpness and resolution first, so I'm afraid that my answer is that it's not the same in the two lenses: although the Planar is a very sharp lens, the Elmarit resolves decidedly more, and at big enlargements this truth is self evident.

The two lenses have about the same used price at Ebay, ranging from 300 to 400 Euros. I am speaking of the Elmarit-R 90 last version, because if you pick the first version of the Elmarit, (and accept to live with some slightly inferior performance in the corners and wide open), you can spend much less, sometimes even less than 200 Euros.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
They are completely different lenses. Or at least I repeat this to myself in order to have an excuse to keep both


dont! know I want both!!! Laughing the elmarit is definitely sounds like the one I want then looking for the 90 or the 135..... are the later 135s better than the earlier same as the 90's?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:
are the later 135s better than the earlier same as the 90's?


I have no direct experience of the older models, what can I say is that my copy of the 135, a last version, is probably the sharpest lens that I have.

The Sartorius book of Leica lenses (2nd edition), states that the lens in the second edition was completely redesigned. It does not make any quality comparison statement, but judging by the prices the second edition is sold for on Ebay compared to the first edition, I'd say that the general consensus is that the second edition is the better one.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Click here to see on Ebay I have to admit I am tempted by the "dark side" Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:
Click here to see on Ebay I have to admit I am tempted by the "dark side" Laughing


Shame on you! Wink

No, just kidding. I think this is a fantastic lens. I don't know how it compares to Leicas, but it surely is a good lens...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

No, just kidding. I think this is a fantastic lens. I don't know how it compares to Leicas, but it surely is a good lens...


It's also sure that it'll end up costing much more than a Leica-R


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why not try macro lenses like Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 that is superb sharp and cheap,additional extra is the lovely bokeh!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1