Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From what I know about sharpness if sharpness is your goal you use something very close to the formats normal in this case 43mm for the 35mm format but they make 50's as we all know. A 55mm or 60mm or 4omm. Maybe a 35mm. Those are going to be your sharpest glass. - even a short tele is much harder to make sharp than a normal focal length lens and wides even harder. Long tales and ultrawide you can forget about it. Comparing their sharpness to a near normal that is. They do what they do at their extremes its impossible to make them sharp as a normal. If they are saying an 18mm lens is in the same category of ultra sharpness as a normal or extreme tele zoom and they all represent the sharpest of what you can get if sharpness is your goal does not add up to me Its great they can make them sharp at all to be usable. They they can make them darned sharp. My point is these in this article are various apples and oranges. Apples and pears going on here. Comparing a normal against an ultra wide against a very long tele and wide zooms seems odd to me all in the same basket. They are going to have by nature very wide differences in digress of sharpness. -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/