Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Please explain "residual field curvature means", how this is different from "curvature of field" (which I think I know the meaning of), and, more importantly, why it is a "good thing". Thanks, Ben Maria Speroni wrote: > I'm trying to decide which 50mm M lens to get. I've perused the LUG > archives but I have an interesting (imho) twist to the dilemma that, as > far as I know, has not been covered already. As you might predict, I > have been recommended the 50/2 as it's the sharpest 50 out there, but > when one person said "in the same league as the 35/1.4 ASPH in every > way", I hesitated. The reason is that I have had two 35/1.4 ASPH, both > sold because I ended up prefering the images from my 35/2 non-asph. > While the images from the 35/1.4 ASPH were indeed very sharp, especially > wide open, it lacked the "3-D" and pleasant out-of-focus rendition of my > classic 35/2. > > My question is, does the 50/2 suffer from this "problem"? I was > investigating the 50/1.4 and found out that it has residual field > curvature, probably of the same type as in the classic 35/2. I wonder > if this is why I prefer the classic 35/2, and if I should go for the > 50/1.4 based on this. Or is this too simplistic? Any opinions from > people who have used both 50mm lenses? I'll probably end up doing a > side by side test myself but I thought I would pick some LUG-brains > first ;) > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com