I have never used any of the modern Summicrons, but I've messed with some older versions on an M3 (not sure exactly how old these lenses were I must confess, they seemed a similar vintage to the body) but this lens seems to outperform them. However, greater sharpness and contrast and that feeling of "presence" comes at an equipment premium, and if your work could benefit from that, or you want to see that in your work, this is a great lens. Great photography is often made with horrible lenses, and is none the less for it. Mind you, I think people often put too much stock in the sharpness of a lens and think that is the hallmark of great photography. I refer to it as a feeling of "presence" that lesser lenses do not have. However, what many here refer to as the "3D" feel, while I don't think is such a great way to put it, I'll agree. So comparisons with medium format in my opinion are unfounded. It CAN distinguish and resolve details that a 6x7 with a soft lens would not, but there is a distinctly different feel.
As much as I love the Zeiss 50 1.4 for MM mount this rangefinder lens is significantly higher-performing, there is no question.įilm grain of 35mm will distinguish 35mm results from medium format. Not one of these lenses can beat the 45mm Planar G mount for overall sharpness or presence. And my camera bags and cases include a Zeiss 120 f/4 Makro-Planar for Hasselblad, Zeiss 50 and 85 f/1.4 Planars and 100mm f/4 Makro-Planar for MM mount, and several L series Canon EF lenses including the 50 f/1.0, 85 f/1.2 and a couple of L zooms. For practical, general use (not photographing test charts on a wall under controlled conditions) is the single sharpest lens I own.
0 kommentar(er)
