50mm vs. 50mm

[RezaLoghme]

but still...they are, aren't they? I have yet to find a Hasselblad V Series 1.0 prime.

 

[GregY]

but still...they are, aren't they? I have yet to find a Hasselblad V Series 1.0 prime.

of course they are but your question is a complete non sequitur..... has nothing to do with anything under discussion

 

[MattKing]

But if you want, you can find an 80mm f/1.9 lens for a Mamiya 645.
I've never seen the need for one. Back in the day, if I has a need for one, I would have rented one, because otherwise that extra spped would spend most of its time being wasted, sitting unused.
All fast lenses involve compromises - size, cost, complexity, resolution, distortion, focus throw.
Choosing any lens is a question of weighing the compromises against each other.
If speed is your most important criteria, choose based on that.

 

[chuckroast]

Arent they mutually exclusive?!

That's not been my experience.

A Hasselblad negative done properly is razor sharp with a rich tonality. My point was that TMX moves 35mm in that direction, and at 8x10, you almost cannot tell that the print was made from a 35mm negative.

 

[cliveh]

I think the key word in the original post is character. Different lenses do exhibit different characteristics, but to try and compare two Lieca classic lenses in terms of quality values is a bit meaningless.

 

[GregY]

That's not been my experience.

A Hasselblad negative done properly is razor sharp with a rich tonality. My point was that TMX moves 35mm in that direction, and at 8x10, you almost cannot tell that the print was made from a 35mm negative.

Yes TMX is an incredible film..the detail it holds and the resulting prints from 35mm (let alone from 120 or 4x5) are quite something.

 

[Craig]

Back to the original question, I think the answer is "it depends". Generally speaking, lenses are at their best 2-3 stops down from maximum aperture. It's also true that lenses of a large aperture are more difficult to correct all the aberrations than lenses of more modest aperture.

Short of actual testing of a particular example, I think it would be very difficult to say if a 1.4 lens closed down 1 stop is better or worse than a 2.0 lens wide open. It think it woudl come down to the build quality of the individual lenses and how they ave been treated since they were manufactured.

 

[GregY]

Back to the original question, I think the answer is "it depends". Generally speaking, lenses are at their best 2-3 stops down from maximum aperture. It's also true that lenses of a large aperture are more difficult to correct all the aberrations than lenses of more modest aperture.

Short of actual testing of a particular example, I think it would be very difficult to say if a 1.4 lens closed down 1 stop is better or worse than a 2.0 lens wide open. It think it woudl come down to the build quality of the individual lenses and how they ave been treated since they were manufactured.

Agreed, i don't think there is a meaningful difference.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am now getting worries as I am reading reviews that the Summilux is said to have lesser image quality than the Summicron. The Summilux has the extra f-stop, but that is it.

Lesson learned: never sell a Leica lens.

 

[GregY]

I am now getting worries as I am reading reviews that the Summilux is said to have lesser image quality than the Summicron. The Summilux has the extra f-stop, but that is it.

Lesson learned: never sell a Leica lens.

RL...... don't overthink it. Take photos...
BTW I've sold dozens of Leica lenses.....

 

[chuckroast]

I am now getting worries as I am reading reviews that the Summilux is said to have lesser image quality than the Summicron. The Summilux has the extra f-stop, but that is it.

Lesson learned: never sell a Leica lens.

There is a greater lesson here: Don't blindly rely on what you read on the Internet. Test things for yourself.

The 'Lux has a stellar reputation, particularly stopped down.

I have used a 1945 Elmar, a mid-50s 'Cron, a modern V3 Cron ,a Color-Skopar, and Nikon f/1.4 AIS, all in 50mm on a variety of cameras. In absolutely no case was the lens a limitation in what I could do. I suspect the 'Lux would be much the same.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Pretty much any lens that you can put on a Leica is good enough. If you go down the internet rabbit hole of comparisons all you'll find is Leica snobs with strong opinions that never take photos.

Personally I see little point to buying a Leica lens these days when there are exceptional lenses that are much less expensive and can also deliver higher image quality if that is what you are looking for. The Leica tax makes little sense to me.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Pretty much any lens that you can put on a Leica is good enough. If you go down the internet rabbit hole of comparisons all you'll find is Leica snobs with strong opinions that never take photos.

Personally I see little point to buying a Leica lens these days when there are exceptional lenses that are much less expensive and can also deliver higher image quality if that is what you are looking for. The Leica tax makes little sense to me.

Since I want to use the Summilux on my R6, which non-Leica lenses can you recommend, especially ones which are cheaper?

 

[Craig]

Personally I see little point to buying a Leica lens these days when there are exceptional lenses that are much less expensive and can also deliver higher image quality if that is what you are looking for. The Leica tax makes little sense to me.

That's true, and the slightest bit of motion blur will obliterate any supposed differences between lenses.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Tomorrow my Summilux R is back from CLA, so I can finally use it.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I did a nice tour with my R4 and the Summilux. Boy, it is a lens. When the R6 is back ( on which it will remain permanently), I will buy some hi-res film (not my usual XP2) and give it a go at some architectural shots.