das
Well-known
I have owned and tried out many camera systems and many different lenses. But I have a really basic question. Are the best rangefinder lenses always going to be better than the best SLR lenses? It seems to me that SLR lenses have always been far more complicated, often retrofocal, to deal with the mirror and the distance from the film plane. Leaving aside SLR lenses specifically designed for digital mirrorless and such, do the best SLR lenses from the 70s from the 90s even compete with best rangefinder lenses? Like do the best Contax C/Y, Canon, or Nikon SLR lenses from the pre digital age perform as well as the best Leica / Voigtlander / Zeiss ZM lenses? It seems to me from detailed lens analyses from lens reviews and MTF charts like they do not.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Mackinaw
Think Different
The 1970's saw a lot of new technology come along that really helped 35mm SLR lenses. Fluorite, UD glass, aspheric surfaces, floating elements, etc. were mainly applied to 35mm SLR lenses. Erwin Puts considered the Canon FD 55/1.2 aspherical to be better than a Leitz Noctilux.
Jim B.
Jim B.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It's a bit of an odd question, since by the 1970s most companies had dropped their (interchangeable lens) rangefinder lineup. Which means for the most part, development of lenses for rangefinders stopped in the 1960s, and aside from Leica, there wasn't much (if anything) new coming out until the 1990s. Meanwhile companies were pouring new technology and development into SLR lenses in the 70s and 80s, and some very fine performing lenses were produced.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I think what you are talking about also mainly applies to wide angle lenses (retro-focus). Rangefinder lenses can be quite good (to my eye), and they tend to be smaller and lighter. I suspect this is because they do not have to project the image as far back past the mirror, etc., as you say.
I have a 1971 era Zeiss Ultron, which is quite good (for 1971), but I suspect newer Zeiss lenses are even better for the reasons @Mackinaw stated as well as the fact that today we have a lot more computational power to design lenses with ever more elements, as well much improved coatings to control internal reflections. The more elements you have, the more degrees of freedom to design higher order aberrations, but then again, at some point it may not be clear if better makes any difference. The higher element counts (thus more degrees of freedom for design) really help with zoom lenses I suspect.
I have a 1971 era Zeiss Ultron, which is quite good (for 1971), but I suspect newer Zeiss lenses are even better for the reasons @Mackinaw stated as well as the fact that today we have a lot more computational power to design lenses with ever more elements, as well much improved coatings to control internal reflections. The more elements you have, the more degrees of freedom to design higher order aberrations, but then again, at some point it may not be clear if better makes any difference. The higher element counts (thus more degrees of freedom for design) really help with zoom lenses I suspect.
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
Im a bit puzzled by your question... Are you talking about ‘like for like’, eg. how does a 1975 SLR 50/f1.4 compared to a 1975 RF 50/f1.4?
Or are you talking about film era SLR lenses compared to digital era RF lenses (eg. modern Leicas and all the ZM and VM lenses)?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Wide angle lenses for SLRs, having to be retrofocus, introduce complex distortion, while those for rangefinders do not. So Leica wide angle lenses from that era are better than Nikon or Canon SLR wides. The same is true of medium format lenses. Even the normal 80mm lens for the Hasselblad has to be "a little bit retrofocus" (as Dr. Fleischer of Carl Zeiss put it); so the 100mm Planar was developed in order to have a zero-distortion lens as close to the normal focal length as possible.
On the other hand, there is no reason why lenses longer than normal focal length can't be just as good for SLRs as for rangefinders. A case in point is the 105mm f/2.5 that put Nikon on the map! I think I'd include the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor among the great SLR lenses. A comparison with the 90mm Summicron-M of the same period would be interesting. In fact, the 90mm Summicron-R for the Leica SLRs can hold its own with the M versions.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, well, um, I'm going to ignore the direct question but I will say that I don't think anyone will notice if there is a difference.
Most lenses are good in the middle and fade towards the edges but - thinking of 35mm film - most people don't print what's at the edges. They ought to print (say) 8" x 12" to use the full frame but they crop it and print 8" x 10" and so the edges get missed.
Secondly, the best lenses will do much more than mere 8x12 and yet if you ask in a lab they will tell you that they churn out millions of 4x6 and very little else. Well, that's what they said in the days of film and labs.
Nowadays, we scan and look at them on screens. If a screen is 1200 pixels high then 35mm negatives are being looked at as 1200 x 1800 pixels or about 2 megapixels. So who will notice the superior lens?
Lastly, using a good lens with a tripod, cable release, the zone system, bracketing and a super fine grain film will show how good the lens is and justify the money spent but who does it?
In other words, regardless of how good or bad the lens is, very few will notice it in the real world. OK, rant over...
Regards, David
Most lenses are good in the middle and fade towards the edges but - thinking of 35mm film - most people don't print what's at the edges. They ought to print (say) 8" x 12" to use the full frame but they crop it and print 8" x 10" and so the edges get missed.
Secondly, the best lenses will do much more than mere 8x12 and yet if you ask in a lab they will tell you that they churn out millions of 4x6 and very little else. Well, that's what they said in the days of film and labs.
Nowadays, we scan and look at them on screens. If a screen is 1200 pixels high then 35mm negatives are being looked at as 1200 x 1800 pixels or about 2 megapixels. So who will notice the superior lens?
Lastly, using a good lens with a tripod, cable release, the zone system, bracketing and a super fine grain film will show how good the lens is and justify the money spent but who does it?
In other words, regardless of how good or bad the lens is, very few will notice it in the real world. OK, rant over...
Regards, David
retinax
Well-known
I have no answer, but I want to say that retrofocal wides are not such a big problem. They were until the 50s and maybe 60s, but since then, not so much. Consider that e.g. the supposedly excellent ZM 35 1.4 is a Distagon, i.e. a retrofocal design. Of course there still is more freedom for lens designers in RF lenses, it doesn't have to be as strongly retrofocal as an SLR lens. Oddly no-one has concerns about telephoto lenses (as opposed to long focal lenses) in small formats, which are inverted retrofocal designs.
That said, I do believe there is an advantage in slow, ultra wide angles like the more traditional 21 mms. There, the savings in lens size, weight and consequently manufacturing cost over something usable on an SLR (has to be faster) can be significant.
That said, I do believe there is an advantage in slow, ultra wide angles like the more traditional 21 mms. There, the savings in lens size, weight and consequently manufacturing cost over something usable on an SLR (has to be faster) can be significant.
leicapixie
Well-known
The old Leitz lenses were nice, usually lower contrast.
Modern Leica lenses are very contrasty, wide angles are all based on retrofocus, causing an increased size, in length, diameter and weight..
I love my old lenses, really only modern one a 135mm Tele-Elmar f4,
that is stunningly sharp at f4 !
Professional use was (out of studio) was all SLR, Kodachrome or Ektachrome.
I saw very little difference in sharpness..even in hand made prints..between SLR and RF.
Modern Leica lenses are very contrasty, wide angles are all based on retrofocus, causing an increased size, in length, diameter and weight..
I love my old lenses, really only modern one a 135mm Tele-Elmar f4,
that is stunningly sharp at f4 !
Professional use was (out of studio) was all SLR, Kodachrome or Ektachrome.
I saw very little difference in sharpness..even in hand made prints..between SLR and RF.
Last edited:
GLL
Member
I've tried to find out more about this myself - apart from anything else, it points to interesting questions about optics and trade-offs and so on. Sadly, like most camera talk, there's a lot of noise and not much data out there comparing similar lenses made for SLRs and rangefinders.
With this hefty caveat, the few bits of information that are out there point to a not-insignificant optical advantage for rf lenses.
Here is a an excellent article from Roger at lens rentals taking a detailed look at the question for a range of 50mm lenses, including the APO 'cron, Zeiss Otus and the Sigma Art. Unsurprisingly the APO 'cron is the best performing lens, but the two SLR lenses do very well, beating the everything else in the center. All three leica lenses (APO cron, cron and lux asph) are sharper than the SLR lenses at the edges. The Zeiss planar and VC nokton 1.1 do pretty well, and the sonnar has a generally poor showing. It's hard to take much from this, because the two SLR lenses are top-of-the-line, ultra corrected models (although the same is true at least for the leicas), but it does seem possible that for rf lenses (very broadly speaking) it is possible to build lenses with excellent sharpness across the frame. Even highly corrected (gigantic) lenses like the otus couldn't beat the cron' in the middle or the other leicas at the edges.
Another earlier test roger did here uses the M9 for a regular MTF test, and gets similar results. Without the APO, the summilux is the sharpest lens at every aperture both centre and average. The canon 1.4 and 1.2 look very good wide open, but as they stop down the 'cron and lux both get better.
Roger notes that the m-mount lenses might be disadvantaged by the smaller pixel count of the m9 vs the nikon and canon cameras, in which case the rf lenses would be even better in comparison.
The last anecdote i'll share is of a guy who tested a range of medium format lenses. I can't remember the detail, but I believe it was using film and counting lines, so a real labour of love. From memory, the Mamiya 7 lenses were *by far* the sharpest lenses tested, although I think a number of the TLRs had very sharp optics, as did a few of the 'blads. This is, of course, rather unfair, given that the M7 is much more modern than the others (and worth noting too that the Fuji GW lenses made a rather poor showing).
What I have personally taken from all this rather unscientific evidence is that in sum it supports a general statement that it is easier to design optically superior (or, really, higher resolution) lenses for rangefinders, at least for normal lenses and below.
This doesn't mean that all rf lenses are superior - from Roger's tests the Zeiss and VC lenses both come out looking not so hot compared to the modern Otus and Sigma Art lenses. But it does mean that, when the stops are pulled out, as they are for the newest Leica lenses, the Otus and Arts and the Mamiya 7 lenses, rfers have a slight advantage that is most noticeable in higher corner resolution and improvement in performance as they stop down.
This is all in addition to the advantages vis-a-vis distortion at the ultra-wide levels, which is very noticeable when comparing even say an 24mm 2.8 canon lens to the 25mm vc m-mount lens.
With this hefty caveat, the few bits of information that are out there point to a not-insignificant optical advantage for rf lenses.
Here is a an excellent article from Roger at lens rentals taking a detailed look at the question for a range of 50mm lenses, including the APO 'cron, Zeiss Otus and the Sigma Art. Unsurprisingly the APO 'cron is the best performing lens, but the two SLR lenses do very well, beating the everything else in the center. All three leica lenses (APO cron, cron and lux asph) are sharper than the SLR lenses at the edges. The Zeiss planar and VC nokton 1.1 do pretty well, and the sonnar has a generally poor showing. It's hard to take much from this, because the two SLR lenses are top-of-the-line, ultra corrected models (although the same is true at least for the leicas), but it does seem possible that for rf lenses (very broadly speaking) it is possible to build lenses with excellent sharpness across the frame. Even highly corrected (gigantic) lenses like the otus couldn't beat the cron' in the middle or the other leicas at the edges.
Another earlier test roger did here uses the M9 for a regular MTF test, and gets similar results. Without the APO, the summilux is the sharpest lens at every aperture both centre and average. The canon 1.4 and 1.2 look very good wide open, but as they stop down the 'cron and lux both get better.
Roger notes that the m-mount lenses might be disadvantaged by the smaller pixel count of the m9 vs the nikon and canon cameras, in which case the rf lenses would be even better in comparison.
The last anecdote i'll share is of a guy who tested a range of medium format lenses. I can't remember the detail, but I believe it was using film and counting lines, so a real labour of love. From memory, the Mamiya 7 lenses were *by far* the sharpest lenses tested, although I think a number of the TLRs had very sharp optics, as did a few of the 'blads. This is, of course, rather unfair, given that the M7 is much more modern than the others (and worth noting too that the Fuji GW lenses made a rather poor showing).
What I have personally taken from all this rather unscientific evidence is that in sum it supports a general statement that it is easier to design optically superior (or, really, higher resolution) lenses for rangefinders, at least for normal lenses and below.
This doesn't mean that all rf lenses are superior - from Roger's tests the Zeiss and VC lenses both come out looking not so hot compared to the modern Otus and Sigma Art lenses. But it does mean that, when the stops are pulled out, as they are for the newest Leica lenses, the Otus and Arts and the Mamiya 7 lenses, rfers have a slight advantage that is most noticeable in higher corner resolution and improvement in performance as they stop down.
This is all in addition to the advantages vis-a-vis distortion at the ultra-wide levels, which is very noticeable when comparing even say an 24mm 2.8 canon lens to the 25mm vc m-mount lens.
Archlich
Well-known
According to published Zeiss charts I found the Distagon 50/4 for Hasselblad clearly outperforms both the contemporary 55/4 Super Angulon and the much newer SA 50/4 for the wide rolleiflexes. Even the distortion is lower.
This whole argument feels weird since the majority of Leica rangefinder wides are retrofocal.
This whole argument feels weird since the majority of Leica rangefinder wides are retrofocal.
Scrambler
Well-known
Basically any lens 50mm or longer on a 35mm SLR is long enough to not need to be retrofocus. So any 50mm or longer could be equivalent either way. The longer lenses often had the same design, RF or SLR.
As also previously mentioned, there are very few non-retrofocal wides for 35mm. Early designs for RF, like the early Biogons, were not retrofocus, but pretty much every wide since the 60s has been. Some early SLR wides weren't retrofocus.
As also previously mentioned, there are very few non-retrofocal wides for 35mm. Early designs for RF, like the early Biogons, were not retrofocus, but pretty much every wide since the 60s has been. Some early SLR wides weren't retrofocus.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I either print 6.7x10; or 9.3x14; or 4.7x7. I like to use the full frame. Am I the only one?
Deardorff38
Mentor
Me too, I always print to the negative proportions, rather than to the paper dimensions.
das
Well-known
Thanks for the responses, everyone. I guess to clarify -- I am wondering if any classic 70-90s SLR lenses are actually better than 70s-90s Leica M glass or even modern Zeiss/Voigtlander glass -- or whether in terms of "performance" (sharpness, distortion control, contrast, etc.), those older SLR lenses are not worth investing in (obviously unless someone likes the "look." Like I read about how X. Y, Z Contax C/Y lens is "amazing" but at the end of the day, is it as good of a lens as a 50 or 35 Summicron from the 1980s? Or are SLR lenses never going to be "as good" because of the inherent limitations in their designs?
Deardorff38
Mentor
Davide, There have been interesting points of discussion, but i have to ask, other than curiosity, what end is achieved? Tens of thousands of historically significant and widely recognized photos were taken (published and printed ) with 'inferior' lenses.... on (for example) Nikon Fs...of the era. The 105 and 180 (not to mention 24, 35f2 & 1.4), were mainstays of photojournalists and I'm only using Nikon because they come to mind immediately. After all they were made for taking photographs, rather than splitting hairs and counting LPM...
markjwyatt
Well-known
In the end what you see and what the viewer sees and experiences determines whether your lens was adequate. Some lenses do suck for sure (1960s/1970s plastic 126 instamatic cameras for example), but many lenses are adequate. Things you can notice are contrast, color correction, vignetting, softness etc. Comparing graphs from a test stand does differentiate some technical characteristics, but many photographers want lenses with poor technicals in some areas to get the "look" they are after. If we were all technical photographers (say reproducing artwork or scientific photographers) then those charts are more important. The charts are worth looking at, and should play into a decision to buy a lens, but I suspect they only differentiate at the extremes (i.e., the lens sucks or is extremely sharp and distortion free), and probably mostly at the bad end (at which point you often do not need a chart to know).
I'm not sure most serious photographers did this... maybe the average consumer camera user at the time, but they weren't using the equipment we are talking about here.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I try to print 12 x 8 but in reality print 198 x 297mm which on the long side is 0.307" short. Blame the A4 paper for that. What annoys is that the printer is made by a firm that makes cameras and so is the paper but they don't match.
6" x 4" matches (and some call it A6 but it can't be both). And there's 19" x 13" I could cut down and waste too much or else print 12 x 18 with a margin but I like the bottom margin to be slightly bigger so it's all a mess.
Some digital cameras produce 4:3 and worse. It's a shambles.
Regards, David
PS The reason for the rant is that a lot of people chose and - worse still -recommend equipment as though they were going to make and sell posters. So why waste all that money on something that will never be used?
Huss
Mentor
Well, I have never seen a 50mm 1.4 SLR lens as bad as my Nikkor-S 5cm 1.4 (on my Nikon S2) for landscape photos. Everything outside the middle 2/3rds is blurry.
And apparently they all do that.
Great for closer up stuff.