The sharpest lenses are from Leica?

<p>Some people told me that Leica Summicron 50mm F2 is the most sharpest lens in the world compare to Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4. But is it true or not?</p>

Center or corner sharpness? Which aperture?

 

True or not? Only you know if someone told you or not.

<p>I think it all depends on how you define sharpness....Leica for years defined it as an intersecting graph between resolution and contrast. And then the quesion arises, sharp where and at what aperture....sharp to the frame edges at certain spectral frequencies, achromatic or apochromatic. It also depends on your medium and how the lens focuses to that medium. So take what others say with a grain of salt and do your own research into the technical details, and how the lens in used. Irwin Puts has a long writeup on the 50 Summicrons (many versions) and their technical development which you might want to read to get a sense of how engineers design and produce a "sharp" lens and then improve on it in a variety of ways as different glass compositions and manufacturing techniques become available.</p>

<p>It does not matter at all.<br>

It doesn't matter if you prefer to use a wide angle lens. It doesn't matter if you prefer to use a telephoto lens. It doesn't matter if you haven't got a camera to mount the lens on. It doesn't matter if you only put photos on the internet, because you need a really, really large print to see the difference between two sharp lenses.<br>

It is irrelevant if you prefer to hand hold your camera, because you will only achieve maximum sharpness from any lens with the camera mounted on a very good quality tripod.<br>

Sharpness is not an overall quality of a lens anyway. A lens might be very sharp as some focus distances and not so sharp at other focus distances. A lens might be sharp at one aperture and less sharp at other apertures. A lens might be sharper for some wavelengths of light and not so sharp at other wavelengths of light, so the colour of what you photograph can be relevant.<br>

Discussion about how sharp a lens is compared with other lenses is just a waste of time, unless you get very, very specific about EXACTLY how you plan to use the lens and how big you intent to enlarge the photograph.</p>

At F1.4 I am sure that the Otus is sharper. If your application needs AF, than neither lens will work for you. If

you don't have $4k for the Otus and $7.8K for the Leica (ASPH version of course), and the applicable high end

camera bodies to utilize these lenses, then perhaps you should look elsewhere.

<p>Agree with Ross, the lab does not determine which is the better lens. Ultimately, it's the image (reflective on photographer) that does the talking. I've seen many fine images that were done with cheapo lenses....at least in comparison to Leica/Zeiss/Schneider stratosphere.<br>

Les</p>

 

<p>Do you want to test lenses or take photographs?</p>

<p>A better term would probably be clarity, the feeling of dimensionality in a lens. This is usually determined by microcontrast, i.e. how much contrast the lens shows in the finest details. In film days Leica was the best followed by Contax (Zeiss). But today Zeiss has gone all out to be the best and so has improve markedly.</p>

<p>I no longer keep up with Leica as it is way out of my price range, and if you want to shoot digitally are useable only on Leica bodies which always seem to me to be several generations behind the other manufactures. But Zeiss makes lenses for all major manufacturers, so if you can afford it, I doubt you'd be disappointed in the modern Zeiss glass.</p>

<p>I'm with John Farrell. And to quote Ansel Adams, "There's nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept." </p>

<p>When I had a darkroom, I regularly enlarged prints to 8" x 10", from negatives from a wide variety of cameras. There was no lack of sharpness at that size, caused by the lens. More recently, I have a 9.5" x 15" print made from a image taken on a Canon 60D, using a Canon 55mm - 250mm kit zoom. There is no lack of sharpness with that, either.</p>

<p>There are many lenses with a higher MTF score than the Leica 50 mm Summicron. There are, in fact, about 5 versions of that lens, each with its own virtues and faults. My version 2, c1964, is very sharp but has less contrast than subsequent versions. It's great for B&W, but perhaps not so nice for color.<br>

Possibly more important in practical terms is how the lens looks when out of focus. Rendering of details and highlights in front of and behind the focal plane have a lot to do with the results produced by a given lens. On thing that distinguishes Leica lenses in general is that they do especially well when used wide open compared to most other lenses. Some, like the Summitar, have a certain following for their peculiar out-of-focus characteristics.</p>

<p>The Otus is the epitome of design overkill. Clinically perfect, it also has as many elements as three classic Leica lenses combined, and weighs more than those lenses and camera together.</p>

 

<i>"It is irrelevant if you prefer to hand hold your camera…"</i><p>

Yeah, I don't think this is true, especially at high shutter speeds.

<p>Puts' tests over the years showed visually discernable camera shake in all handheld shots below 1/500 sec, and he suggested that elimination of this issue probably began to occur at around 1/2000. So what, few of us shoot at 1/2000 or enlarge our shots to sizes where barely discernable camera shake is noticeable. About 2 years ago I had the opportunity to examine some of Vivian Maier's 35mm shots taken handheld with a Leica, and enlarged by a master printer to about 3x4 ft. What little camera shake there may have been was irrelevant...the images themselves was what counted, and they were incredible even at that size.</p>

<p>http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html</p>

<p>Sharpness is just one factor that influences my choice of lenses for photography. I have been using the (old) Rigid Summicron 50/2 for many years, and I like the resulting images from this lens. The (very old) Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is equally beautiful, and with a different look. Again, it is not just sharpness by itself that is the main factor for me.In the end, it is the photography that makes the difference and not the specific choice of 50mm lens based on sharpness. I know that Leica lenses are designed from the strat to be used wide open almost always. The top Leica optics designer told us this fact last summer in Wetzlar. </p>

<p>Here is Lensrentals test of high quality 50mm lenses.</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/10/the-ultimate-50mm-lens-comparison/</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"sharpest lenses are from Leica" <strong><em>Benjamin K.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Regardless of pricing, the obvious answer for "<em>sharpest</em>" choice is the "<em>State of the Art"</em> Leica 50mm ASPH Summicron.<br /> The achievement to perform at such high levels in such <strong>a small package</strong> is simply amazing; just check out what Zeiss had<br>

to go through with their Zeiss 55mm Otus, in order to achieve similar performance but with the resulting <strong>dimensions & weight!</strong></p>

<p>Thank you <em><strong>Michael</strong></em> & <strong><em>Marc</em></strong> for those excellent links to interesting articles.</p>

<p>Leica has two current Summicron 50 mm f2 optics, one of which is a very very expensive (the aspherical lens elements version), the other quite expensive (maybe half the price of the Otus) but without aspherical elements.</p>

<p>As mentioned by others, sharpness is just one attribute of optical quality and it often varies measurably over the lens field of most optics and at different openings. The non aspherical Summicron is recognised widely for its combination of resolution, contrast and minimum aberrations and is a lens one cannot go wrong with. I haven't had the privilege of using the Otus so do not know it. </p>

<p>As mentioned, why worry about some ultimate point of resolution at some part of the field of capture of the lens? Most high end lenses are likely to offer more than you will ever need, even if you are making moderately large photos (say, up to 16 x 20 print size) or making images under difficult light conditions.</p>

<p>There are cheaper lenses than the two you mention that do great jobs at rendition or image quality. I use a Zeiss Loxia lens for the Sony FE mount that is less than half the price of the cheapest of the two you mention, is also non AF and yields very fine results. There are probably other even less expensive optics out there that are first rate.</p>

<p>If you think more image creation and less image definition I tend to believe that you will have more pleasure.</p>

<p>"Some people told me that Leica Summicron 50mm F2 is the most sharpest lens in the world compare to Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4. But is it true or not?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who cares? Seriously. If you have one or the other and enjoy using it - great. If you have neither but are happy with what you have - perfect. If you have one or both, or some other good lens, and yet keep lusting after something better? Then we have a problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My favourite lens, the uncoated 3.5/5cm Elmar, is plenty sharp enough for me. It's really sharp wide open too. I like it better than my latest version 50mm Elmar, because it's a neater, lighter package.<br>

In fact, with modern emulsions the old Elmar is perfectly capable of producing results as sharp as a good quality TLR.</p>

<p>I analyzed to death my choice of lens for my new (to me) Leica M2. I chose a used 35mm Summarit f/2.5 complete with a rating of "good" from KEH. I actually tried to save money for once in my life as my first choice was a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH . Scanned images from North Coast are more than I expected with this lens. There is magic not because of it's MTF but because it's just a joy to use. I'm learning this lesson the hard way after many years in many different hobbies. </p>

<p>Sometimes your best pictures aren't always your sharpest pictures.</p>

I love how answers become lectures essentially dismissing the legitimacy of the question.

 

I've done the same, and it's been that way since I first encountered this site over a decade ago. Sometimes it's reasonable, sometimes not.

<blockquote>

<p>Some people told me that Leica Summicron 50mm F2 is the most sharpest lens in the world compare to Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4. But is it true or not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point Ray doesn't look like one answer was to the original question. My answer is I don't know.<br /> There should be lens tests on the net. Isn't there something like DxO or other sites that do that sort of testing? That's where I would look if I was actually interested. I suppose the OP can do that for himself.</p>

<p>Ray - I'm assuming you're referring to my one sentence post. I didn't mean to offend or upset anybody. I certainly wasn't trying to dismiss the OP. I was simply making a point about "sharpness". Whatever that is. I am more interested in the content of a photograph and am not offended or upset if the picture isn't sharp. I would like to wish everybody a happy new year and hope that you take many interesting photographs.</p>