I’m debating the real-world differences between the Leica 50mm Summilux-M stopped down to f/2.0 and the Leica 50mm Summicron-M shot wide open at f/2.0.
Specifically, when viewing images on a high-resolution screen at 100% zoom, how noticeable are the differences in:
Is the Summicron noticeably crisper and more clinical, while the Summilux delivers a warmer, more “organic” look? Or are these distinctions subtle enough to be negligible for most practical uses?
- Sharpness (center vs. edges)
- Contrast and micro-contrast
- Bokeh quality and rendering
- Color rendition and tonal character
Would appreciate any real-world experience or sample comparisons if you have them.
Thanks!
If you really, really care for getting the maximum sharpness and micro-contrast, you should shoot medium format.
Don't lose your time with 35mm if ultimate sharpness and resolution is what you want. Even 6x4.5 will blow the socks off 35mm in those parameters.
Shoot a leica rangefinder if you want speed of operation, compactness and light weight.
Cognitive impairment.Lenses "seem to improve with age"?
That used to be true, but 35mm T-Max 100 semistand developed in Pyrocat-HD is very nearly what I'd expect from MF.
I don't find this to be. TMX in 35mm is amazing, that's for sure.
The microcontrast and sharpness approach a good many MF systems. At 8x10 print size, I doubt you can tell the difference reliably, maybe even at 11x14. It all depends on print size and viewing distance.
So, sure, if you compare it to a 'Blad negative enlarged to wall size, you'll see the difference. But in real world viewing situations, the difference is very small if you create the negative properly.
I didn't believe it either until I shot some 35mm TMX and semistand developed it in Pyrocat-HDC. The results were jaw dropping - like nothing I've ever seen from a small negative like this in the past.
And the -lux is in the clinic and hopefully back soon with a new lease of life.
In that case, you should try have fun with 120.
Resized of course for Photrio.
Just don't complain when you are trying to use the grain magnifier under the enlarger.
Maybe Rodinal is the answer
Nice image, BTW.
Arent you a Mamiya expert, what do you think about the "Press" modelsThanks. Nice friends that lend you their exotic lenses - the 35mm for the Mamiya 645 - are to be treasured!
(thanks again @PhotoBob ).
Arent you a Mamiya expert, what do you think about the "Press" models
Arent you a Mamiya expert, what do you think about the "Press" models
I didn't believe it either until I shot some 35mm TMX and semistand developed it in Pyrocat-HDC. The results were jaw dropping - like nothing I've ever seen from a small negative like this in the past.
That used to be true, but 35mm T-Max 100 semistand developed in Pyrocat-HD is very nearly what I'd expect from MF.
...that's because you have not tried Tmax 100 or Acros 100 on Medium Format...
The microcontrast and sharpness approach a good many MF systems. At 8x10 print size, I doubt you can tell the difference reliably
I disagree. Even at 8x10" (OPTICAL PRINT, not silly digital prints) you can see the difference. Even moreso using color film (and real optical prints).
I can easily identify the 8x10" prints i made with my 6x7 gear versus 8x10" made with 35mm gear, of which I have many.
I love my 35mm cameras and indeed TMX or Delta 100 or Acros gives much better results than conventional films, but MF still looks better and sharper, mainly because the combined MTF (modulation transfer function) of the system(*) is far higher.
(*) System = lens + film + enlarger lens
Now, if we are going to compare doing average quality flatbed scanning, my medium format negatives, scanned by a crappy Epson flatbed, are inferior to 35mm negatives scanned using a DSLR and macro lens. But that's not fault of the format!
How do you mean that? Microtonal?
Sharpness and tonal rendering
I thought MF lenses are slower than 35mm lenses
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?