As sharp as Leica 35mm f1.4 ASPH ?

[cichlid]

Hi

I've tried the Leica 35mm f1.4 ASPH lens, it's really super sharp wide open at f1.4.

Is there a Nikon f1.4 lens that can match the Leica for sharpness at f1.4 (never mind the glow)?

My aim of this thread is just to find out the answer and not to "belittle" our Nikon brand :lovegrin:

How about the Nikon 24mm f1.4 lens?

 

[greengoblin]

Hi

I've tried the Leica 35mm f1.4 ASPH lens, it's really super sharp wide open at f1.4.

Is there a Nikon f1.4 lens that can match the Leica for sharpness at f1.4 (never mind the glow)?

My aim of this thread is just to find out the answer and not to "belittle" our Nikon brand :lovegrin:

How about the Nikon 24mm f1.4 lens?

Our 24mm is pretty sharp at f1.4 as well. But the cost difference hehehe....

 

[ZeroDivine]

why not wait for the 35 1.4 nikon af-s ? it will be here next month
though I suspect the leica would still be *slightly* better, but then again leica is many times more expensive
the 24 1.4 is sharp wide open, but then again that is 24mm focal length , can't really compare diff focal length lens.
the zeiss zf 35 1.4 might be another option. I bet the zeiss would be able to give leica a very good fight , looking from the samples so far.

 

[2100]

You need to check out the colours, microcontrast (that pop feeling at f1.4 wide open and printed at big sizes, or say on a good 30" S-IPS screen). One of my clients describe it as that High Def feeling....

AF-S 24/1.4 is pretty good contender. Considering to upgrade to that from my Sigma 30/1.4, which I use for nearly 50% of all my shots. But the price that I charge now does not justify that (only about low 1K range)....but see how coz got lobang to earn about 300 bux more per shoot. LOL! The thing is, will the upgrade give me a leap in pic quality which translates into more pop pictures/talk to you type? The 30/1.4 is good enough for the sizes I am using, but misses sometimes in accuracy (I buffer a lot to overcome that when I see a good moment) so much so that under 4R size you can also see. Only under very controlled enviroment would I be able to use f1.4 on the Sigma.
But if one is loaded, why not.

 

[vaxvms]

nikon 24 f1.4 ...no doubt abt her sharpess from end to end at fully open
if u into prime lens tink is a MUST have

 

[vaxvms]

JPEG direct out from camera 24F1.4 fully open aperture..
takng baby/kids pic vali usefull esp indoor

 

[Hacker]

I have the Leica primes (from 18mm to the 135 APO), and they are certainly a notch above, e.g. distortion, contrast and sharpness at full aperture. But this is a strange question as I presume the OT is comparing rangefinder M lenses (simpler in design but not manufacture) to SLR design?

 

[baggiolee]

JPEG direct out from camera 24F1.4 fully open aperture..
takng baby/kids pic vali usefull esp indoor

what a healthy baby!! look at the eyes...lovely! :thumbsup:

 

[An drew]

Is there a Nikon f1.4 lens that can match the Leica for sharpness at f1.4 (never mind the glow)?
How about the Nikon 24mm f1.4 lens?

I don't think the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 (hope I'm wrong) will be able to match the Leica 35 f1.4 at the corners as it is quite amazing. Centre should be about equal. A Nikon 50 f1.4 perhaps.

 

[2100]

I don't think the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 (hope I'm wrong) will be able to match the Leica 35 f1.4 at the corners as it is quite amazing. Centre should be about equal. A Nikon 50 f1.4 perhaps.

Same sentiments. 24/1.4 has somewhat a visible case of coma from 1.4-2.8. For a 2.9k lens that might be unacceptable for some. You don't buy this lens to shoot from f2-f2.8 often! :bsmilie: My Sigma 30/1.4 also has a bad case of corner coma (but well it costs 500+ bux new for a grey copy with store warranty whatever that means!). Coma is 99.9% unacceptable for astrophotography, but apparently it affects photography connosseiurs as well. :bsmilie: But seriously this is more serious than corner sharpness, as it affects the bokeh with point-light sources which is often one of the main reasons that seperates fair/good -> excellent bokeh.

http://www.celestron.com/c3/page.php?PageID=389
http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/
(APOchromatic / ED / elements with FPL-51/52/53 fluorite Refractors ala glass-lenses scopes are typically coma free even for the entry level scopes, but of coz they are of a very different design, extremely long FL and f9 and above systems)

Probably, the optics in "professional" observatory grade telescopes technically makes our lenses look like toys. :angel:

But actually if you are talking about corner sharpness, the 24/1.4 is pretty ok or above average. Check out "the digital picture" ISO chart comparison samples with other lenses.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=690

Centre no issue, 24/1.4 is as sharp as it can get, among the very best. AF Accuracy is among the best too.

3D/POP factor which the western forums eg FM are saying, well I don't know they say the Leica has a better 3D effect and pops more. :bsmilie:

So which one is better? D7000 + 24/1.4 or D700 + 35/1.4? Long run, the D7000 still can be upgraded to FX (bodies always have to change, esp after 4-5 years).

AF-S 35/1.4 is not out yet, but I am not thinking it would be better than the 2.4/1.4 by any measure. It does not even have ED glass. Just for info (I think some guys here are allergic to kenrockwell's site). Heck even a cheap low $1000+ telescope with 66mm objective is triplet ED and Apochromatic. :sweat:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm
Waiting for the real released samples of the 35/1.4, if its anywhere close to the AF-S 50/1.4 kinda feel rather than the 24/1.4, its gonna fail.

The 24mm matters, coz some people do shoot with that style. Its FX 24mm, 50mm then 85mm. Or FX 35mm, 85mm, 135mm (can be omitted), meaning DX 24mm, 50mm, 85mm.


I view the original OT question as a bit academic as well. There is no way I will be able to do Leica bodies technically, and no way I can afford the lenses anyway financially (not even professional use as a whole system with multiple bodies, unless I am doing 6-8k per shoot).

 

[An drew]

I view the original OT question as a bit academic as well. There is no way I will be able to do Leica bodies technically, and no way I can afford the lenses anyway financially (not even professional use as a whole system with multiple bodies, unless I am doing 6-8k per shoot).

Hope you will get there (6-8k).

Pardon my ignorance, but are there many pros here that uses Leica exclusively?

 

[lsisaxon]

Same sentiments. 24/1.4 has somewhat a visible case of coma from 1.4-2.8. For a 2.9k lens that might be unacceptable for some. You don't buy this lens to shoot from f2-f2.8 often! :bsmilie: My Sigma 30/1.4 also has a bad case of corner coma (but well it costs 500+ bux new for a grey copy with store warranty whatever that means!). Coma is 99.9% unacceptable for astrophotography, but apparently it affects photography connosseiurs as well. :bsmilie: But seriously this is more serious than corner sharpness, as it affects the bokeh with point-light sources which is often one of the main reasons that seperates fair/good -> excellent bokeh.

http://www.celestron.com/c3/page.php?PageID=389
http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/
(APOchromatic / ED / elements with FPL-51/52/53 fluorite Refractors ala glass-lenses scopes are typically coma free even for the entry level scopes, but of coz they are of a very different design, extremely long FL and f9 and above systems)

Probably, the optics in "professional" observatory grade telescopes technically makes our lenses look like toys. :angel:

But actually if you are talking about corner sharpness, the 24/1.4 is pretty ok or above average. Check out "the digital picture" ISO chart comparison samples with other lenses.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=690

Centre no issue, 24/1.4 is as sharp as it can get, among the very best. AF Accuracy is among the best too.

3D/POP factor which the western forums eg FM are saying, well I don't know they say the Leica has a better 3D effect and pops more. :bsmilie:

So which one is better? D7000 + 24/1.4 or D700 + 35/1.4? Long run, the D7000 still can be upgraded to FX (bodies always have to change, esp after 4-5 years).

AF-S 35/1.4 is not out yet, but I am not thinking it would be better than the 2.4/1.4 by any measure. It does not even have ED glass. Just for info (I think some guys here are allergic to kenrockwell's site). Heck even a cheap low $1000+ telescope with 66mm objective is triplet ED and Apochromatic. :sweat:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm
Waiting for the real released samples of the 35/1.4, if its anywhere close to the AF-S 50/1.4 kinda feel rather than the 24/1.4, its gonna fail.

The 24mm matters, coz some people do shoot with that style. Its FX 24mm, 50mm then 85mm. Or FX 35mm, 85mm, 135mm (can be omitted), meaning DX 24mm, 50mm, 85mm.


I view the original OT question as a bit academic as well. There is no way I will be able to do Leica bodies technically, and no way I can afford the lenses anyway financially (not even professional use as a whole system with multiple bodies, unless I am doing 6-8k per shoot).

From the way you write, it seems that you do not have much idea about the construction of telephoto optics and wideangle optics. It is pointless to compare wideangle lenses with tele lenses because the considerations for optimization are vastly different. Coma which is caused by spherical aberration is not corrected with APO nor ED elements but carefully designed correction optics or aspherical optics. APO/ED/Fluorite only corrects chromatic aberration caused by dispersion.

 

[2100]

From the way you write, it seems that you do not have much idea about the construction of telephoto optics and wideangle optics. It is pointless to compare wideangle lenses with tele lenses because the considerations for optimization are vastly different. Coma which is caused by spherical aberration is not corrected with APO nor ED elements but carefully designed correction optics or aspherical optics. APO/ED/Fluorite only corrects chromatic aberration caused by dispersion.

Bro, no worries I don't claim that I know about lens design and optimisation, I'm just a normal shooter. :bsmilie: I just put up the coma example from astrophotography coz THAT is the biggest/most critical app which I can think of now. Coma is a very big deal in that area. And in typical consumer/prosumer forums, this so-called "deficiency" is pointed out. (note the quotes)

Actually, I did not claim that APO/ED/flourite variants are the ones which correct for fluroite, thought it may seem to be so from how I put it. Simply put, for consumers, there are 2 types of refractors scopes (ala glass lenses). One is the lower cost achromats and the other are the higher-end whiz-bang ones with all the goodies APO, ED etc.... Telescopes are not that expensive for the size of glass that we are talkinng about in the 24/1.4 which is typically smaller w.r.t what they are using in telescopes, so i was more like implying why even at 2.9k it can be not easily controlled, after all it took them so very long to update the 28/1.4, and a host of other lenses like 34/1.4, 85/1.4, which seriously I think the 35 is another super expensive item so it better perform well.

Already state here originally and I quote myself.... (note the bold)
"(APOchromatic / ED / elements with FPL-51/52/53 fluorite Refractors ala glass-lenses scopes are typically coma free even for the entry level scopes, but of coz they are of a very different design, extremely long FL and f9 and above systems)"

But as I said I am not very deeply technically knowledgeable abou this as well, so why does the 24/1.4 not really correct for coma? Its definitely not in the 10k plus price range of the Leica of coz. Pls do not get offended its just a tech discussion, do you know the reason why wide-angle optics cannot correct for comas in the fringes? (optically impossible?).
I could not find this in other forums. If it is physically or financially not viable to correct for coma for WA big aperture design due to physics and $$$, then it is not an issue here with all the constraints.

I think the same goes for Hifi (which I DIY) plus if you ask about all these in a hifi forum, the manufacturers would just ask "what the fxxx you know about Hifi design". :bsmilie: The same exists between the Hifi and the Pro world. We get that even amongst the photographer/videographer world. :bsmilie: But I know for pro, $$$ talks and is bottom line.

 

[cichlid]

I started this thread cos i am smitten by the Leica quality and have just a simple thought if any Nikon can match it for sharpness that's all.

Any yes, like Hacker said, it's a strange question :bsmilie:

 

[2100]

Hope you will get there (6-8k).

Pardon my ignorance, but are there many pros here that uses Leica exclusively?

Why not....no issue. Its gonna be high-end, there's a market for everything. Search for the vids on youtube.


Here's some wedding stuff. (sorry Andrew, I am not so sure about the exact true penetration of it for other types of commercial uses)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91uHBbVbgiE

 

[2100]

I started this thread cos i am smitten by the Leica quality and have just a simple thought if any Nikon can match it for sharpness that's all.

Any yes, like Hacker said, it's a strange question :bsmilie:

No worries, your question exists in different forms for different hobbies, be it Hifi, Home Theatre, Horology etc.... Different People have different levels of extremes and wants. You see my Danley sound Labs subwoofers, think you will faint. :bsmilie: But I was supposed to be from the purist Hifi faction.... but then next time go one round come back again.

Some will even question the comparison of 24mm vs 35mm. Well like you've said it, "just a simple thought if any Nikon can match it for sharpness that's all".

 

[lsisaxon]

Bro, no worries I don't claim that I know about lens design and optimisation, I'm just a normal shooter. :bsmilie: I just put up the coma example from astrophotography coz THAT is the biggest/most critical app which I can think of now. Coma is a very big deal in that area. And in typical consumer/prosumer forums, this so-called "deficiency" is pointed out. (note the quotes)

Actually, I did not claim that APO/ED/flourite variants are the ones which correct for fluroite, thought it may seem to be so from how I put it. Simply put, for consumers, there are 2 types of refractors scopes (ala glass lenses). One is the lower cost achromats and the other are the higher-end whiz-bang ones with all the goodies APO, ED etc.... Telescopes are not that expensive for the size of glass that we are talkinng about in the 24/1.4 which is typically smaller w.r.t what they are using in telescopes, so i was more like implying why even at 2.9k it can be not easily controlled, after all it took them so very long to update the 28/1.4, and a host of other lenses like 34/1.4, 85/1.4, which seriously I think the 35 is another super expensive item so it better perform well.

Already state here originally and I quote myself.... (note the bold)
"(APOchromatic / ED / elements with FPL-51/52/53 fluorite Refractors ala glass-lenses scopes are typically coma free even for the entry level scopes, but of coz they are of a very different design, extremely long FL and f9 and above systems)"

But as I said I am not very deeply technically knowledgeable abou this as well, so why does the 24/1.4 not really correct for coma? Its definitely not in the 10k plus price range of the Leica of coz. Pls do not get offended its just a tech discussion, do you know the reason why wide-angle optics cannot correct for comas in the fringes? (optically impossible?).
I could not find this in other forums. If it is physically or financially not viable to correct for coma for WA big aperture design due to physics and $$$, then it is not an issue here with all the constraints.

I think the same goes for Hifi (which I DIY) plus if you ask about all these in a hifi forum, the manufacturers would just ask "what the fxxx you know about Hifi design". :bsmilie: The same exists between the Hifi and the Pro world. We get that even amongst the photographer/videographer world. :bsmilie: But I know for pro, $$$ talks and is bottom line.

No offense taken.. You are right that coma is the most dreaded for astrophotography.. even the slightest coma can cause stars to smear.. just wanted to point out that the correction optics for wide angle lenses are more complex than telescopes. If you look at the constructions you will see that there are so much more elements for wide angle lenses than tele lenses. Telescopes have even less elements and they are spherical optics which are easy to polish despite the size. Wide angle design is made even more difficult with digital sensors because the rear projection has to be perpendicular. Then there is aspherical optics... But to simply put it, there is a lot of knowledge going into the coma correction optical group. It's more complicated for wide angle lenses than tele lenses because of the rectilinear projection. I'm no expert either but I know it's not easy that is why there were Noct lenses and the Nikkor 28/1.4 which uses a glass aspherical element to correct coma.

But if you really think about it, good telescopes are not cheap either considering the number of elements they have..

 

[2100]

)

You are right man, seems like there are so many more elements in a big aperture wide angle photography lens.

I digged more into this subject, and found that the new AF-S 85/1.4 is not an aspherical design, yet it has zero coma at f1.4! :sweat: So very difficult to explain....
The simple answer would be there is no perfect lens, or even remotely close to absolute perfection.

Good refractor telescopes (visual or AP) are usually with all the good stuff (ED/APO/flourite or "close to fluorite" glass) to control CA/false colour. It is very hard to control to a nice level, coz nearly everything about celestial bodies is point source. :bigeyes: Most of our prime lenses, the best ones, cannot handle this (granted, telescopes are optimised for this specifically). The biggest cost which rise exponentially upwards is probably the size of the elements, mainly the primary objective lens.

http://www.optcorp.com/ProductList.aspx?uid=1-600-765-1112

Here's some good bird stuff by good decently priced scopes by William Optics (much lower than a 500/4)
http://www.williamoptics.com/wo_gal...ath=2&osCsid=39f0fa10b14db645acd6a4ff98e8fb84

Drool stuff!!! (highest quality link inside links to large format res kinda pix, 324 megapixels 18000px by 18000 px for some)
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/nebula/hires/true/

Seriously the Nikkor 24/1.4 is looking very good as a whole. Still contemplating if i shd get it (still on DX now, but I mean this is meant to be kept, so opens up FX next time). I need the 35/1.4 to come out before I can make the decision.

 

[2100]

The AF-S 35/1.4 looks pretty good.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=36645437

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/942336

 

[lsisaxon]

You are right man, seems like there are so many more elements in a big aperture wide angle photography lens.

I digged more into this subject, and found that the new AF-S 85/1.4 is not an aspherical design, yet it has zero coma at f1.4! :sweat: So very difficult to explain....
The simple answer would be there is no perfect lens, or even remotely close to absolute perfection.

Good refractor telescopes (visual or AP) are usually with all the good stuff (ED/APO/flourite or "close to fluorite" glass) to control CA/false colour. It is very hard to control to a nice level, coz nearly everything about celestial bodies is point source. :bigeyes: Most of our prime lenses, the best ones, cannot handle this (granted, telescopes are optimised for this specifically). The biggest cost which rise exponentially upwards is probably the size of the elements, mainly the primary objective lens.

http://www.optcorp.com/ProductList.aspx?uid=1-600-765-1112

Here's some good bird stuff by good decently priced scopes by William Optics (much lower than a 500/4)
http://www.williamoptics.com/wo_gal...ath=2&osCsid=39f0fa10b14db645acd6a4ff98e8fb84

Drool stuff!!! (highest quality link inside links to large format res kinda pix, 324 megapixels 18000px by 18000 px for some)
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/nebula/hires/true/

Seriously the Nikkor 24/1.4 is looking very good as a whole. Still contemplating if i shd get it (still on DX now, but I mean this is meant to be kept, so opens up FX next time). I need the 35/1.4 to come out before I can make the decision.

Yah, like I mentioned, coma in tele lenses are much easier controlled.. there is a group of spherical optics specially to correct coma. In the DC 135/2 and DC 105/2, this group is made to be able to move so that the characteristics of the lens bokeh can be changed. Bokeh and coma is closely related because they are due to spherical aberration. So in photography sometimes photographers want a less technically perfect lens for artistic effects..

Since you are familiar with audio, many hifi purists wants colored sound from their system because it sounds 'better' than clinically perfect studio nearfield monitors which cost a fraction of the price. ;p

If you are in astrophotography and wants a good lens, you might want to hunt for the 28/1.4 instead. It is no more in production, unfortunately..