Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Phil Stiles wrote: > > Dear Luggers: > The recent inquiry about Photodo led me to review the MTF comparisons > for M lenses at that site. > http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html > Now I'm not the kind of guy who goes around poking hornets' nests with > a stick, but I was struck by one aspect of this ranking. From this list > I have formed an impression that the 35/1.4 ASPH is one of the shining > stars of the M lineup. Yet photodo actually has it listed with the > lowest of the MTF grades. I grant you, no single number can capture the > nuances of real world optical performance. So is this merely an example > of the inadequacy of such rankings, or are the other lenses just a > little bit "better" (sharper?) in ways that have no real world > significance? Or have I been worshiping a false idol? > For many years I have used a Nikkor 35/1.4, and that lens photodo rates > at 3.9 (3.8 for the Leica M 35/1.4). My experience with the Nikkor has > been that it's not that great at 1.4, but improves dramatically with a > little stopping down. (Wide open performance does seem to be a major > Leica difference.) Perhaps the ASPH lens performance is weighted to the > wide open (where one would be using the lens), and the photodo average > neglects this aspect. > Regards, > Phil Stiles Photodoodoo if you ask me! :) Mark Rabiner Department of Redundancy Department http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/