----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: [OM] Noctilux versus Zuiko [was: [OM] While we were
fighting...[originally mailed Thurs.
AM]]
Mark H. writes:
<< And you know there IS a F1.2 50mm Leica lens and that is the Original
Noctilux. Made from the late 1960s to 1975 or so it is extremely rare
and is a highly-sought after collectors prize bringing upwards of
$5000.00. I know that many ( including myself ) in the Oly group also
have Leica
cameras. Does anyone happen to have or have access to one of these
most rare lenses??? If so it would make a fine subject to compare to
the Zuiko 50mm F1.2. >>
You are comparing lenses of two different eras here, which doesn't seem
entirely fair.
The f/1.2 Noctilux was already the subject of a comparison test to a
Zuiko in the May 1976 Popular Photography, where my take is that the
Olympus 55mm f/1.2 (the 50mm f/1.2 Zuiko was released yet) was superior
in many measured factors, except flare, T-number, spherical aberration,
and central zone split image contrast. Regarding the latter, that
Noctilux was the worst of any f/1.2 lens tested in corner performance.
The Noctilux was better 2/3rds out at f/1.2 and f/2 only, but was one of
the worst performers in the very important 1/3rd out zone.
The 50mm f/1.2 Zuiko was tested Nov 1983 in Modern Photography, but I
don't know a date for the 50mm f/1.2 or 1.0 Noctilux tests.
Of course, comparing a 50mm rangefinder lens to an SLR lens is a bit
like comparing apples to oranges. They have different focusing systems!
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
I didn't realize the original Nocticlux tested so poorly. But why
is comparing a rangefinder lens
to an SLR lens like comparing apples and oranges?? They do indeed
have different
focusing methods but how does that bear on lens testing?
Mark H.
I don't know whether it is actually true or not, but it is said that
rangefinder lenses are inherently superior to slr lenses. The reason
given is that is much more difficult to design and build a lens which
has more physical distance from the back of the lens to the film
plane to allow room for the slr mirror to flop around. That is one
reason why slr lenses are usually much larger, heavier, with more
elements than the equivalent rangefinder lens. So the SLR lens is, in
a sense, a compromise to the viewing system rather than just making
the best lens you can. On a range finder you can even put the back
glass of the lens up against the shutter curtain if that is the best
place for it in the lens design.
You can see some differences if you go to Photodo.com and compare
similar MTF scores for equivalent Leica M and Leica R lenses. For
instance: 50/1.4 = 4.2(M), 4.3(R)[not here obviously]; 50/2= 4.6(M),
4.5(R); 35/2 = 4.1(M), 3.8(R); 35/1.4 = 3.8(R); 28/2.8 = 4.1(M),
3.8(R).
On the other side of the argument you could say that a short distance
to the film plane is only a factor on wide angle lenses and there is
no inherent advantage to lenses of one focus system over another at
other focal lengths.
I do take MTF testing, at least on this site, with a grain of salt.
I think the Zuiko 28/2 probably is better than 2.6 and better than
the 200/4 which gets the same score.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|