M
mike_nunan
Hi Scott,
I think you're overestimating the ability of even the premium manufacturers to produce lenses that perform well at wide apertures, especially wide angle lenses, and especially at the edge of the field. The difference between 0.8 (80% contrast) and 0.6 that we have in the corner performance of the two lenses is clearly observable even in a small print. I find that much of the time with an ultra-wide lens, I have the subject off-centre and near the camera, because this uses the exaggerated perspective to best effect. For that reason, edge performance is a key concern, and although the Distagon gives something away in the far corners, the sides of the frame are still within its sweet spot. This is definitely relevant information when it comes to lens purchasing and usage.
You ask "Is there really that much difference between any of the top rated lenses?" to which I can reply "yes there is". I've been slowly going through my lenses taking simple real-world comparison shots to get a feel for the optimum results I can expect of each of them, and I'm surprised how much variation there is among different top-quality lenses at full or wide apertures. The fact that a lens says "Planar", "Distagon", "L", "Summicron" (or whatever) on the barrel doesn't guarantee anything, so it's important to match your own requirements to the characteristics of a lens before splashing out all that cash.
One thing that has consistently amazed me in my assessment of the comparison shots is the very low magnifications at which differences are clearly visible. As an extreme ex&le, I can reliably distinguish shots from my 85/1.4 at 1.4 vs 2.8 on the file browser thumbnails in PS, never mind any kind of print! More relevantly, there is an observable difference in crispness between my Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2 and a Summicron 50/2 at 12.5% magnification on the screen. So yes, these are very practical considerations for shooters like me who are into available-light work.
Best regards,
-= mike =-
I think you're overestimating the ability of even the premium manufacturers to produce lenses that perform well at wide apertures, especially wide angle lenses, and especially at the edge of the field. The difference between 0.8 (80% contrast) and 0.6 that we have in the corner performance of the two lenses is clearly observable even in a small print. I find that much of the time with an ultra-wide lens, I have the subject off-centre and near the camera, because this uses the exaggerated perspective to best effect. For that reason, edge performance is a key concern, and although the Distagon gives something away in the far corners, the sides of the frame are still within its sweet spot. This is definitely relevant information when it comes to lens purchasing and usage.
You ask "Is there really that much difference between any of the top rated lenses?" to which I can reply "yes there is". I've been slowly going through my lenses taking simple real-world comparison shots to get a feel for the optimum results I can expect of each of them, and I'm surprised how much variation there is among different top-quality lenses at full or wide apertures. The fact that a lens says "Planar", "Distagon", "L", "Summicron" (or whatever) on the barrel doesn't guarantee anything, so it's important to match your own requirements to the characteristics of a lens before splashing out all that cash.
One thing that has consistently amazed me in my assessment of the comparison shots is the very low magnifications at which differences are clearly visible. As an extreme ex&le, I can reliably distinguish shots from my 85/1.4 at 1.4 vs 2.8 on the file browser thumbnails in PS, never mind any kind of print! More relevantly, there is an observable difference in crispness between my Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2 and a Summicron 50/2 at 12.5% magnification on the screen. So yes, these are very practical considerations for shooters like me who are into available-light work.
Best regards,
-= mike =-