Leica R - what am I missing?

RJ- said:

Nor do Leica R lenses value hypersaturated colours

Click to expand...

There are a lot of odd ideas and a considerable back-story in your posting, RJ. I may address some of these comments when I get time.
The one above is something weird which I have also heard elsewhere. Do you think a lens alone is capable of creating hypersaturated colours ?

Hi Mark,

I can't help with your hearing.

Your experience is different from others; including mine. Perhaps what you value about Leica lenses: its technical, rather theoretical paper qualifications, don't particularly interest Leica R cine photographers.

Your question about 'Do you think a lens alone is capable of creating hypersaturated colours' is a weird and reductive one. It is never 'one' thing; photography is not reduced to one thing or other.

The multicoatings of the Leica R lenses contribute much more to the rendition of subtle coloration; just as the Contax T* lenses contribute to their contrasty colour pop.

I'm sorry I didn't join this forum in 2004 to explore others' opinions: I am answering on topic respectfully to the original poster who asked me a question.

Kind regards
RJ

Your long posting contained the comment "They are 'sharp' (high definition, high resolution at the corners for the most part) but not that many Leica R photographers care" which seemed rather patronising unless it was meant to be specifically about the modern cine users of these lenses ( which you did not specify ). The OP didn't ask questions about cine, as far as I can tell (unless it was via a PM) . I can assure you that many users like myself bought into the Leica R system in the 80's and 90's just because their lenses were the sharpest and usually the most contrasty. This was a long time before the widespread post-2005 obsessions with vintage character, retro-ghosting, 3D-pop, exact colour rendition etc. came into the still-photography world. I can perfectly accept that current cine users ( and still users ) have all of these interests, for certain R lenses. However, the lenses that were designed by Lothar Koelsch's team from the late 80's were not aimed at creating subtle 'artistic' effects, they were designed to be the technically best at the time, and I valued them for allowing me to shoot sharp landscapes with Provia and Kodachrome 25, because they were 1 stop ahead of many other lenses in terms of correction.

Your last post continues a patronising theme -
"I can't help with your hearing" (?)

"Perhaps what you value about Leica lenses : its technical, rather theoretical paper qualification.."
It seems rather extraordinary to be talked-down to because I like lenses that are sharp.

"I'm sorry I didn't join this forum in 2004 to explore others' opinions"
I think that comment speaks for itself.

On the plus side I do agree with you that it is a great shame that so many of these fine lenses are being ruined for still photography.

Film-Niko said:

With the R lenses you have to differentiate between the older ones, and mainly the newer ones designed in the 90ies / early 00ies. At that time Leica invested a lot in new, improved lens designs and created some truly outstanding lenses, like e.g. the
- 19 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R 2nd version – 1990
- 28 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R 2nd version – 1994
- 90 mm APO-Summicron-R ASPH – 2002 (spectacular lens)
- 100 mm f/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R (spectacular lens)
- 180 mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R – 1998 (spectacular lens)
- 180 mm f/2.0 APO-Summicron-R (spectacular lens)
- 280 mm f/4.0 APO-Telyt-R (spectacular lens)
- 280 mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R
- 400 mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R
- modular APO-Telyt-R 260/400/560 head
- modular APO-Telyt-R 400/560/800 head

Zooms with a prime-lens quality:
- 21 mm–35 mm f/3.5–f/4.0 Vario-Elmar-R zoom – 2002
- 28 mm-90 mm f/2.8-4.5 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH
- 70–180 mm f/2.8 Vario-APO-Elmarit-R zoom
- 35–70 mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH
- 105–280 mm f/4.2 Vario-Elmar-R zoom

Side note:
As you are already mainly invested in Pentax, you may have a look at the new Irix lenses. Excellent quality, manual focus lenses available with Pentax K mount. And very affordable.

Click to expand...

100% correct!

From about 1990 on Leica invested substantially and successfully in new, outstanding lens designs for the R system. And these new lenses, especially the APO designs, even today belong to the best lenses for 35mm format you can get.
Some of my photographer friends are using them (some also used with adapter on digital bodies), and we are exchanging results. And the results from the R Leicas are really impressive.

The optical quality is so good that 20 years ago I was really tempted to get into the R system. But then Nikon introduced the F6, and two years later Zeiss started offering new lenses for the F mount.
Well, it wasn't reasonable for me to use two excellent 35mm systems on parallel, so I stayed with Nikon, purchased the F6 (best decision ever) and also started using the Zeiss lenses for my Nikons (perfect choice, never regretted it, outstanding quality lenses).
But I can completely understand anyone using the Leica R system and the latest R lenses.

Lots of these new designs were done under the responsibility of engineer and lens designer Lothar Kölsch. By the way, after his retirement at Leica he has been active as an independent lens designer:
So, if you put enough money on the table, you can get your indiviadual lens designed by him .

Best regards,
Henning

Mark J said:

Leica R lenses were exceptional in their time in the 70's/80's & early 90's , though they have been surpassed in recent years by many lenses for modern 20+ Mpix applications.

Click to expand...

Mark, I think here it is needed to differentiate: Lots of the later Leica R designs, especially the APO lenses in the telephoto range, are still excellent today, and don't have any problems with higher resolutions sensors. Some friends of mine are using them also on digital. I've seen the results, and there is really nothing to complain about at all

Mark J said:

In their time their strong points were better stray light control and colour saturation, and exceptional consistency around the FOV resulting from their tighter tolerances ( this is confirmed by tests in Color Foto magazine, if you can find back-issues ) .
Leica also made their own glass for many years, in the Wetzlar area, they had some very high index lanthanum flints and a couple of unique borate flints ( KZFS ) than nobody else had access to.

Click to expand...

Yupp, at that time the lens tests published at Color Foto were done by company 'Image Engineering', and these test were indeed very good (very good test procedere). Similar was valid for the tests done by Foto Magazin at that time.
And in both test systems the newer, later Leica R lenses demonstrated their outstanding quality. I have all these tests in my archive.

Best regards,
Henning

Mark J said:

Your long posting contained the comment "They are 'sharp' (high definition, high resolution at the corners for the most part) but not that many Leica R photographers care" which seemed rather patronising unless it was meant to be specifically about the modern cine users of these lenses ( which you did not specify ). The OP didn't ask questions about cine, as far as I can tell (unless it was via a PM) . I can assure you that many users like myself bought into the Leica R system in the 80's and 90's just because their lenses were the sharpest and usually the most contrasty. This was a long time before the widespread post-2005 obsessions with vintage character, retro-ghosting, 3D-pop, exact colour rendition etc. came into the still-photography world.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Mark J said:

I can perfectly accept that current cine users ( and still users ) have all of these interests, for certain R lenses. However, the lenses that were designed by Lothar Koelsch's team from the late 80's were not aimed at creating subtle 'artistic' effects, they were designed to be the technically best at the time, and I valued them for allowing me to shoot sharp landscapes with Provia and Kodachrome 25, because they were 1 stop ahead of many other lenses in terms of correction.

Click to expand...

Yupp, 100% correct.

Mark J said:

Your last post continues a patronising theme -
"I can't help with your hearing" (?)

"Perhaps what you value about Leica lenses : its technical, rather theoretical paper qualification.."
It seems rather extraordinary to be talked-down to because I like lenses that are sharp.

"I'm sorry I didn't join this forum in 2004 to explore others' opinions"
I think that comment speaks for itself.

On the plus side I do agree with you that it is a great shame that so many of these fine lenses are being ruined for still photography.

Click to expand...

+1.

Best regards,
Henning

MrclSchprs said:

One of the supposed qualities of Leica R lenses would be the contrast and sharpness at full aperture. Compared to others, significantly more contrasty and also sharper. Can you say something about that?

Click to expand...

It is correct. Especially the later designs and APO lenses (see post above) are excellent in that regard. And at the time of introduction the performance was quite unique, with almost only some Zeiss lenses on a comparable level.

But time and progress has moved on, and today you can get that quality level fortunately also for other SLR systems like Nikon and Canon. Here especially three new(er) lens lines from Sigma and Zeiss must be mentioned:
- Sigma Art (A) lenses
- Zeiss Milvus lenses
- Zeiss Otus lenses.

In these lens lines there are lots of really outstanding lenses, and some are even (partly) surpassing the former best Leica R lenses.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

- Sigma Art (A) lenses

Click to expand...

One thing I don't like about them is they are huge! For example a Sigma 50mm F1.4 is about 900g and 125mm long and an AF Nikkor 50mm F1.4 is 230g and 42.5mm long.

Craig said:

One thing I don't like about them is they are huge! For example a Sigma 50mm F1.4 is about 900g and 125mm long and an AF Nikkor 50mm F1.4 is 230g and 42.5mm long.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the difference in optical performance is also really huge: The Sigma Art lens - and also the Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50 - is in a completely different league. No chance for the Nikkor.
By the way, the Milvus is more compact than the Sigma.

And if you look e.g. at the Milvus Planar 1.4/85 and Milvus APO-Sonnar 2/135: Those are significantly closer to the dimensions of the equivalent Nikkors compared to the Sigma Art 1.4/50 to Nikkor 1.4/50 size relation.
I find the Zeiss Milvus lenses very well balanced on my F6, F5, F4s, F100 and F90X.

And the Sigma Art 1.4/35 is relatively compact. And much much better than the current 1.4/35 AF-S Nikkor and former 1.4/35 AI-S Nikkor.

Well, "there is no free lunch", as the economists say.
In the case of 35mm format SLR lenses that means that you have to make significant and visible compromises if you want to have a small and lightweight f1.4 lens:
You have to either sacrifice optical performance, especially fully wide open, and 1-2 stops down. And towards the edges of the frame.
Or you have to reduce the Lichtstärke: Instead of f1.4 only f2 or f2.8. But in most cases with a reduction of the Lichtstärke you also sacrifice optical performance, because an f1.4 lens stopped down to f2 or f2.8 offers generally better performance at that aperture than a lens with open aperture of f2 or f2.8 at those apertures.

I am quite relaxed concernig the bigger dimensions of these new high-performance 35mm lenses: Because in a significant number of situations I can replace my heavier medium format gear with 35mm SLRs and high-performance optics.
For example Delta 100, PanF+, HR-50, TMX and Acros II developed in top developers like SPUR HRX, in combination with my most modern Nikon glass, my Zeiss lenses or the Sigma Art 1.4/35 for example, offers a performance very similar, and sometimes even better to FP4+ in 4.5x6 and 6x6. And a very often better performance than Kentmere 100 or Fomapan 100 in MF.
And the high-performance lenses can be used at open aperture without problems and very good to excellent quality, giving me the two stop advantage compared to my medium format lenses. So I can often use ISO 100/21° in 35mm, when I need ISO 400/27° in MF. And then the quality advantage of medium format is also quite often minimal or even gone.

During the last years I have more and more moved away from 35mm format lenses designed in the 70ies and and 80ies. Meanwhile I am using mostly modern high performance lenses. Because the quality difference is really huge, and I see it impressively in my optically enlarged prints and in slide projection.
Another advantage: Because of the much better sharpness at full open aperture manual focussing is easier and more precise, as the optimal focus is better seen in the viewfinder.

Best regards,
Henning

The focussing at full aperture then stopping down is not necesary with some of the digital devices.

I used to like the groundglass of my Linhof 6x9 better than its rangefinder for focussing but the rollex back died and I kept forgetting the dark slide when using sheet film so I gave it away to a friend (or swapped it for something interesting) He used it better than me.

As to the late Leitz /Leica constructions, mine work well on my Nikon Z7 as long as the spotmeter point stays put (today it had moved to the lower right hand corner and ensured a series of wrong exposures with shutter timing that ruined sharpness). So user errors must be counted when comparing optics-

p.

Henning : the Tamron SP 35/1.4 is truly remarkable, I bought a copy shortly after they came out. It is critically sharp right into the corners , with no colour, by f/1.8. It is however a beast, somewhat larger than the Sigma, so it's not a lens I take out every time I need a 35. The Zeiss ZE 35/2 is a very good compromise.

Mark J said:

Henning : the Tamron SP 35/1.4 is truly remarkable, I bought a copy shortly after they came out. It is critically sharp right into the corners , with no colour, by f/1.8. It is however a beast, somewhat larger than the Sigma, so it's not a lens I take out every time I need a 35. The Zeiss ZE 325/2 is a very good compromise.

Click to expand...

Mark, I completely agree with you concerning the new Tamron SP 1.4/35. Really an outstanding lens, especially at open aperture.

It is interesting especially for the Canon EF system film users, as they can use this lens without any limitations.
For Nikon users like me there is one problem: The lens has a fully electronic aperture control (like the latest Nikkor E typ lenses), so you cannot normally stop down the aperture with Nikon's film bodies, which all have a mechanical aperture control.
To use a different than open aperture f1.4 needs a trick: Put the lens on a more modern Nikon DSLR (bodies from 2007 onwards), switch the camera on, choose the aperture you want, put the lens off with switched on camera (the choosen aperture remains), and put the lens on the film body.
That is of course a bit cumbersume, and practical / possible in a studio, or table-top photography at home, but much less practical outside "in the fields".

Therefore for most Nikon film shooters the Sigma Art 1.4/35, Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/35 and Distagon 2/35 are the best options for outstanding 35mm primes.

Test reports of the Tamron SP 1.4/35:

- https://www.lenstip.com/570.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_35_mm_f_1.4_Di_USD-Introduction.html


- - - -
By the way, there is another outstanding lens most film SLR photographers don't know: The Tokina Opera 1.4/50. That is indeed the Pentax DFA 1.4/50 lens, which is built by Pentax for the Pentaxians, but also for Tokina in a rebranding agreement / contract.
But here we have the same situation as with the Tamron: Because of the fully electronic aperture control, it is fully usable with Canon EF, but has the limitation explained above with Nikon F.

Furthermore we have the manual focus Irix lenses for Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax K. In that line we also have some lenses which are significantly surpassing the older Canon, Nikon and Pentax lens designs from the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies.

And I am very curious to see the future direction of Meyer-Optik-Görlitz in Germany:
With their two latest Biotar lenses they have meanwhile added two lenses which offer a very good performance stopped down. So you get the "Swirley Bokeh" at open aperture, and very good sharpness, resolution and contrast performance (a bit) stopped down.
They explained several times that they intend to further widen their range of lenses including completely new designed ones.

So in total there are quite a lot of excellent options for 35mm SLR users (Canon, Nikon, Pentax) to "pimp" the performance of their systems significantly by better, much improved lenses (including the improved designs Canon, Nikon, Pentax have introduced in their line in the last years).

Best regards,
Henning

miha said:

LEICA R-Lenses by Erwin Puts: http://www.summilux.net/perso/teiki arii/Leica_R_lenses.pdf

Click to expand...

This documentation by Erwin Puts about the Leica R lenses is really very good and detailed, and worth reading.
I just want to add the following very important information:
The data he gives concerning the possible maximum system resolution of these lenses with film is
a) partly outdated, as there are meanwhile new films with much improved performance
b) partly wrong even at that time, and in general too low and underrating the possible performance of those latest Leica R lenses (and other high-performance lenses) in combination with the films at that time (and of course the new films introduced since then).

To a):
ADOX CMS 20 / CMS 20 II, HR-50 / SCALA 50, Provia 400X, TMY-2 have not been available at the time he wrote that documentation.
With CMS 20 / CMS 20 II you can reach even the diffraction limits of modern lenses (proven by Zeiss and by me for example).
Therefore Put's statement that you can get 150 lp/mm system resolution (lens+film) at max. even with the best films is wrong.
Zeiss has reached up to 400 lp/mm with SPUR Orthopan UR (= ADOX CMS 20) with their 21mm ZM Biogon at f4.
I have got the diffraction limit at f5.6 with my 50mm Zeiss and Nikkors on ADOX CMS 20 II at an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops).

To b):
But even before ADOX CMS 20 / CMS 20 II it has been possible to get a system resolution higher than 150 lp/mm with films like Kodak Technical Pan, Agfa Ortho 25 and Agfapan APX 25.
His statement that you cannot get more than 100 lp/mm with current (medium speed) BW films at that time was and is completely wrong, as many experienced photographers have demonstrated over the years.
We've talked about lens tests published 20-25 vears ago in German photography magazines. Lens test company Image Engineering published at that time a test procedure including test charts for lens tests for the normal enthusiast. They recommended using low and medium speed BW film for these tests (like TMX, APX 25, TechPan etc.).
And they wrote that very good lenses are surpassing 100 lp/mm system resolution with these films.
Which I can confirm to 100%: All my very good lenses are easily surpassing that value. I have published my results here on photrio regularly. And with films like PanF+, Delta 100, TMX, Acros / Acros II, HR-50 I've got system resolutions (lens+film) in the range of 115 - 150lp/mm.

Best regards,
Henning

I don't think there have been any cases of "That would have been really great picture if only the photographer had used a Leica lens."

It is not the lens that makes the picture - except in the strictly geometrical sense.

However, there are gear fetishes and I have succumbed to them. It's nice to have something that's just wonderfully built and reliable. Nice if it also performs well, but that's secondary.

MrclSchprs said:

Over the years I have build up an extensive collection of Pentax SMC (first bajonet mount) lenses, Pentax F lenses, Pentax FA Limited lenses and Hexanons. I am very pleased with them and with the camera's as well.

Click to expand...

For photographers very satisfied with the Pentax K system, but nevertheless looking for further improvements and / or additional focal length, it is certainly worth to have a look at the new Irix lenses:

Some test reports:
- https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?...&sort=&szukaj=Search&szukaj=Search&przetest=1

- https://dustinabbott.net/2021/04/irix-45mm-f1-4-dragonfly-review/

- https://dustinabbott.net/2018/08/irix-15mm-f-2-4-blackstone-edition-review/

- https://dustinabbott.net/2019/03/irix-150mm-f2-8-11-macro-review/

-
-
-
-
Best regards,
Henning

Nicholas Lindan said:

I don't think there have been any cases of "That would have been really great picture if only the photographer had used a Leica lens."

It is not the lens that makes the picture - except in the strictly geometrical sense.

Click to expand...

I have waited for that kind of comment since the beginning of the thread.......
Because every time when we are discussing high quality lenses (or high quality film) for 35mm format on photrio we will have at least one comment like this, or like "It is the photographer, not the quality of the equipment", or "sharpness is a bourgeois concept", "technical quality does not matter" etc. .
Interestingly we find often the same people then later in the medium format or large format forums praising and cherishing medium and large format for the .........drum roll...........technical quality .

If someone is not interested in high or best technical quality - absolutely no problem at all (see my signature below). But I think then people should be consequent. And not appreciating or even criticising high quality 35mm equipment on the one hand, but praising larger formats for technical quality on the other hand, is a contradiction.

By the way, I have several books of famous and excellent German photographers (Norbert Rosing, Michael Martin) in which the pictures were made exclusively with the Leica R system.
And you really see the excellent quality, even with the limitations given by book printing. Both worked for their books almost exclusively with Velvia 50, which offers the unique quality of delivering very high resolution of 80-85 lp/mm already at very low object contrast of only 1.6 : 1 (2/3 stops difference). Only Velvia 50 and 100 offer that, no other colour film.
And the Leica R lenses with their - especially with the later modern lenses - excellent performance already at open aperture enabled both photographers to use Velvia 50 in lots of different and often light challenging situations.
So the combination of lenses and film makes a really visible and important difference, and very positive visual and aesthetical impact.

And exactly that I see in my personal photography as well with the much improved modern lens designs, as I have explained in one of my posts above. The combination of these lenses with the best low to medium speed films available make a very visible and positive difference, not only in technical, but also in aesthetical terms.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Because every time when we are discussing high quality lenses (or high quality film) for 35mm format on photrio we will have at least one comment like this, or like "It is the photographer, not the quality of the equipment", or "sharpness is a bourgeois concept", "technical quality does not matter" etc. .

Click to expand...

I don't read any of that in the comments.

No one is saying that Leica didn't make lots of top-notch lenses, but so did Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, Pentax, Sigma, etc. I think the "sharpest" lenses I ever owned were TWO -- from Ricoh and Yashica -- much to my surprise. I know if someone handed me a bunch of 8x10' shots taken with Minolta's 24mm and any of Leica's 24mm, I could not pick any out as "better" than the other -- in any way "better" is defined.

xkaes said:

I don't read any of that in the comments.

Click to expand...

Please read attentively what I have written, what I have quoted, and consider the context. I have referred to a general pattern concerning that topic here on photrio. And there is also a good reason why I have set smileys . Take it with a bit of humour, because it was meant that way.

xkaes said:

No one is saying that Leica didn't make lots of top-notch lenses, but so did Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, Pentax, Sigma, etc.

Click to expand...

But fact is that when you look at the time when these new, latest design Leica R lenses were introduced (1990 - 2005), none of the equivalent Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sigma lenses could compete (with the exception of a few super-telephoto lenses in the 300-600mm range; but that is a field most photrio members here are not active in).
This has changed - at least partly - in the last 15 years, because Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma have meanwhile catched up. Because they had to.
But there are still some Leica R lenses where you won't find an equivalent on the same quality level from one of these other manufacturers, like e.g. the 4/280.

xkaes said:

I think the "sharpest" lenses I ever owned were TWO -- from Ricoh and Yashica -- much to my surprise. I know if someone handed me a bunch of 8x10' shots taken with Minolta's 24mm and any of Leica's 24mm, I could not pick any out as "better" than the other -- in any way "better" is defined.

Click to expand...

But you have never made such a blind test, right?

I am doing such blind tests regularly, also together with my quite big regional photo community ( I am regularly organizing photographer meetings). And the differences between the much improved modern lens designs, and the older lens designs, are very obvious and clearly visible.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

But you have never made such a blind test, right?

Click to expand...

I did tests a long time ago, and I only compared two lenses. They were Leica lenses, made by Minolta, but you will "poo-poo" them anyway. If you have results comparing a Leica 24mm f2.8 to a Minolta 24mm f2.8, we'd all love to see them, since -- "I am doing such blind tests regularly".

@xkaes:
Again, please read attentively what I have written here concerning the Leica R lenses: I have said it is very important to differentiate between the older lens designs, and the newer, latest designs introduced in the time from 1990 to 2005. Because the differences are very substantial and visible.
And the Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/24 is an older design, not belonging to the mostly outstanding and much improved later modern designs.
Yes, there are some tests of that lens as well in my archive.
And please have a look at Mark's assessment in post No. 26.

Best regards,
Henning

I don't doubt that the latest Leica lenses are excellent, but I suspect for many situations the lens isn't the weakest element in the photographic chain.

Under idea conditions such as camera on a tripod, mirror locked up, high resolution film and a static subject I'm sure there is a difference to be seen between a Leica lens and Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc.

However, under less than perfect conditions, such as in a jazz club using Delta 3200 handheld at 1/30 s I doubt there would be any discernible difference on the negatives between a Leica and others.

Reading "attentively", Mark says that he likes one lens over the other -- exactly what you are saying. All that's just opinions.. Where's the beef?

Mark J said:

the Leica one was much better, I assume because of the tighter tolerances, but also the better coatings this 1990's example had compared to the older MC 24/2.8 I had.

Click to expand...

Craig said:

Under idea conditions such as camera on a tripod, mirror locked up, high resolution film and a static subject I'm sure there is a difference to be seen between a Leica lens and Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion completely. For example, some lens might be better than another at some aperture, but even there I'd like some evidence, and not broad conclusions, that are merely opinions. Brand X might be better at f2.8 than Brand B, but show no difference stopped down, for example. Would I be willing to pay $x,000 more for that one stop? Some would, I'm sure.

xkaes said:

Reading "attentively", Mark says that he likes one lens over the other -- exactly what you are saying. All that's just opinions.. Where's the beef?

Click to expand...

That is neither what Mark has written, nor what Henning has written.
Quote Mark:
"Having owned both versions, the Leica one was much better, I assume because of the tighter tolerances, but also the better coatings"
That is not "just an opinion", but a direct comparison of both lenses. And from someone who worked in the past as lens designer. So someone who knows the stuff.
And I remember some published lens test of these lenses, too, with the same result.

And Henning has explained very precisely that it is essential to differentiate between older designs like the 24mm, and the later much improved lens types. Which I can totally confirm from my own tests with former and current lenses from several lens brands.

xkaes said:

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion completely. For example, some lens might be better than another at some aperture, but even there I'd like some evidence, and not broad conclusions, that are merely opinions. Brand X might be better at f2.8 than Brand B, but show no difference stopped down, for example. Would I be willing to pay $x,000 more for that one stop? Some would, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

You will find enough evidence if you talk to
- those experienced photographers who own and use both old and new lens designs
- if you look online at trustworthy lens testers like for example
or

For example just have have a look at a lens type most of us are using, the classic 1.4/50 standard lens.
Old design Nikkor AF-D 1.4/50 vs. new design Sigma Art 1.4/50, Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50:
- https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/442-nikkorafd5014ff
- https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/959-sigma5014dgfx
- https://www.lenstip.com/400.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM.html
- https://www.lenstip.com/459.1-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Milvus_50_mm_f_1.4.html

Or have a look at the Sigma 1.4/35 Art lens and Tamron 1.4/35:
- https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff
- https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx
- https://www.lenstip.com/359.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM.html
- https://www.lenstip.com/570.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_35_mm_f_1.4_Di_USD.html
You will not find any old 1.4/35mm lens which comes close to these lenses. The old ones cannot compete at all.

The Nikkor 1.4/85 AF-D has been an improvement to its forerunner Nikkor 1.4/85 AI-S. But it has no chance against the latest Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85:
- https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/538-nikkorafd8514ff
- https://www.lenstip.com/464.1-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Milvus_85_mm_f_1.4.html

Just some examples for a quick overview. That list can be extended by dozens of more examples.