Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Geoff, The difference in distortion and the saggital separation will show up on even average technical ability shots(read hand held and well zone focused) if you know what to look for. If you go to Rabiner print sizes then you will definitely see the difference. Yes, I have shot both on film and I expect the differences to be less on the cropped sensor as most of the differences are out in the outer third. Part of my favoritism goes to the size as I most frequently use a lens this wide as a street shooter and a big honking lens(relative statement for our SLR friends and their 24-70 behemoths :)0 takes more time for the natives to become less restless. As a quick guide to the differences shoot the same scene with the 24 Leica ASPH and the 25 Zeiss offering. As great as the Zeiss is, you can see greater clarity of micro detail with the Leica lens as well as some greater flare resistance. The same relationship occurs with the 4.5 to the 2.8 21. I actually bought the 18mm over the 21 as I needed the 24mm focal length more than the near 28 which the 21 would give me on the M8. On the M8 the 18 is quite stellar although I haven't really rung it out yet. What is working out as my standard walk around is the 15 Heliar, 18 Zeiss, TE, and the 50 ASPH; they fit in a small Domke and provide almost any image I can imagine. Coupled with a Gitzo Traveller hanging off my belt and almost anything is possible in my usual haunts. On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Geoff Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > Don, I must take up the cudgel again here ;-) Firstly I agree (as an > owner) > that the 4.5 21 is a great lens. Compact, sharp, accurate and all of the > rest. Now despite my trepidation at possibly angering whichever deity > oversees gear heads, I have to comment on your statements here. I do > follow > your interpretation of the MTF diagrams. > Have you tried the 2.8 version? Do you think that there is a demonstrable > difference in the areas that you mention? Let's assume best case and only > consider M8 files. By that I mean optical deficiencies will be most > evident. > But now if you are both handholding the camera and zone focusing, I really > think that any theoretical differences are likely to be more than > outweighed > by those other factors. > > You said it best in your second sentence 'it's smaller, lighter and costs > less' > I would add that it costs a lot less than new Leica glass, but then Leica > have no slow M wides currently. I'm hoping that may change at Photokina > (purely my wishful thinking and speculation). Also, shooting into the sun > or > nearly so, it is noticeably inferior to the latest Leica asph glass. > Specifically it exhibits veiling glare much more readily. I won't post the > boring test roll I shot in my front yard. Some samples below for anyone > interested. These are all downsized of course, and are from M7 film scans. > I > haven't shot this lens on the M8 as yet. > > Shooting into the sun. They can never be sharp enough or well corrected > enough for me. Still I quite like the effect in this one. Also, since this > was Neopan in dilute Xtol, I guess that may have influenced the highlights > too?? > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/92958185 > http://tinyurl.com/ynu6nc > > Less adverse light > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/92939176 > http://tinyurl.com/2855sf > > Conversion from Provia 400X, at sunrise > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/93331630 > http://tinyurl.com/ysmy65 > > This one is posted just for sample purposes. Not my favourite from the > area. > This is the entire frame within the slide mount. Note the horizon is ruler > straight (amazingly I didn't get the horizon tilted either!) and also the > excellent lack of vignetting. This is stopped down, I think around f11. > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/94721480 > http://tinyurl.com/2arypu > > > > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/e > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [Leica] Another ZM lens on the horizon > > Akhil, > The 4.5 is somewhat superior even at f8 out to the edges; look especially > at > the disconnected curve for the 2.8 with the sagital changing radically. > Plus, it is smaller, costs less, and has less distortion. Usually, when > you > are using a lens this wide shutter speed is not a big problem with a > rangefinder camera so you will be shooting at F4 down anyway. With a > rangefinder I will typically set the lens at F5.6 and set a hyperfocal for > infinity down to 4 feet or so. Truly a P&S at that point. > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Akhil Lal <alal@duke.poly.edu> wrote: > > > Interesting comment on the 21/45 vs. 2.8. I had been thinking of getting > > the 2.8 until I saw your post. > > > > Just curious, other than distortion, what can the 21/4.5 do that the 2.8 > > cannot do equally well at the same aperture? The MTF curves, at 5.6 look > > very good for both lenses. > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Don Dory wrote: > > > > > Clayton, > > > The 21 4.5 has been in the works for three or so years as I have > played > > with > > > prototypes for that long. It reason for existence is smaller size, > > better > > > performance especially at the edges, and some nostalgia for the > original > > > groundbreaking 21 Biogon. For almost all users of a 21 the 4.5 is a > > better > > > choice; only those who need limited DOF or who have to have a 2.5 stop > > > faster lens will opt for the 2.8 version. > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM, R. Clayton McKee <leica@rcmckee.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > -- > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Don don.dory@gmail.com