In Search of the Ultimate Standard Lens

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Howabout a bunny with a graph on its' head?

[richie chishty]

So..............what have we concluded from these MTF graphs?

[douglas k.]

Your on-line portfolio suggests that you should worry about other variables before seeking out the "ultimate standard lens." But I suppose it is easier to pore over charts and spend money than to learn how to make good photos.

[monsoonphoto.net]

I'm gonna hijack this and point you to some inspiration I just found. Take your eyes off the charts and on to the street.

 

<P>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/maciekda">http://www.pbase.com/maciekda</a>

[david_doyle2]

Here you go...<div></div>

[g-man1]

the third one

[celia_bashir1]

I know that men are obsessed with measurement, but really gentlemen, don't you think this is bordering on the pathological?

[nesrani]

Whereas women are obsessed with what... putdowns?

[jeremy_tok]

Wow, Alan, that link you pointed me to is teriffic.

<p>

There are several conclusions to be drawn from this study. Firstly and very predictably, some of those who feel out of their depth in this thread feel the need to dismiss that which they do not understand.

<p>

Second, and more interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the Summicron-M 50 came out tops among the 50s as tested by Hasselblad. The Konica in the same mount has nearly identical MTFs. Here is the order in which the MTFs were presented:

<p>

1. Leica M 50/2<br>

2. Konica KM 50/2<br>

3. Contax G Planar 45/2<br>

4. Pentax SMC F 50/1.7<br>

5. Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.7<br>

6. Pentax FA 43/1.9<br>

<p>

This is also the order I have ranked them. It's really a toss up between 4 and 5. Surprising, considering that the Pentax SMC F is a plasticky AF thing.

<p>

There was a thread last week about the very economical design of the 50 'cron. It has 5 planar surfaces and the two surfaces around the aperture share the same radius. Martin Tai commented in that thread that such a dearth of degrees of design freedom would result in an inferior lens. It apparently does, because when compared to the more luxurious design of the Pentax SMC M 50/1.7, the Summicron lags noticeably in every aspect despite being slower, as the diagrams posted show (top: Pentax, bottom: Leica). However, this inferior design came up taking the No. 1 spot in actual measurements, which leads me to conclude that the limiting factor in actual normal lens performance is not design but manufacture. The Leica may be weaker in design, but it is very well executed in the workshop leading to better performance over more sloppily made, but more luxuriously designed lenses. So Mandler wasn't out of his mind with that cheapo 'cron design.

<p>

This conclusion throws a bad light on Zeiss, which has been trying to position themselves as the most exacting maker of lenses. But as it turns out they couldn't even comprehensively beat a plastic AF Pentax at the 50/1.7 level.

<p>

Well, that's about it. I guess Leica reigns (do I hear sighs of relief?) and Konica is terriffic value. In the course of my research, I've come to discover other interesting things, but I'll leave them for another day.

[douglas k.]

Just think about how many photos you could have made in the time

it took to compile all of this nonsense.

[open]

Jeremy Tok, you sure write a lot, but what i would like to see is your best photograph taken with any one of these Ultimate Standard lenses? Can I see it?

[jeremy_tok]

No?

[harvey_edelstein1]

Jeremy, I am an engineer and I appreciate what you are doing, I wish you had included the Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 which is in the moderate price range and certainly of more interest to Leicaphiles than Pentax gear.

 

Your info points to potential buyers buying used Konica lenses to save money while not losing any practical image information, at least for the items that were measured here.

[Allen Herbert]

Which MTF looks best?

 

They all look like a load of scribbling to me.

 

Is not it about what the eye perceives and the mind accepts.

 

Just a thought

[socke]

Hm, I'm satisfied with the CZ 50/1.7 although it doesn't fit a rangefinder :-)<br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/img017.jpg" width="533" height="800"><br>

<i>Contax 167MT, CZ 50/1.7</i>

[andy m.]

It's almost not worth worrying about. The miniature 35mm format is not the format for the image quality fanatic.

[andrew_hall1]

You guys love a panoramic page for sure. </center>