Digital BW, The Print

Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> ... the advantage that MF has over DSLR is the lenses...

I think most of the 35mm manufacturers have put the bulk of their optical development money into making zooms with the widest range and a variety of other goals, with ultimate optical quality way down the list.  With today's best sensors, the optical quality bar was set too low for those of us who want to wring all the quality out of these cameras that the sensors now can achieve. But, I assume the manufacturers know what their main market wants.

I talked to a Canon rep about whether one of their "L" lenses that I'd had (and sold) in the past had been improved.  His response was that the trick is not to make the very best optic, but to make good ones that are affordable.  Along these lines, they apparently pour money into being able to assemble the modern many-element lenses with a minimum of slop.  They also design the optics to tolerate assembly QC limits.

I recently gave up getting a well-assembled "Zeiss" (read Cosina) 50mm f/2 for my M9.  After sending back 2, I decided to keep the third.  At least it gave a good image at f/8 (and nice selective focus image at f/2).  The published MTF curve for the lens at f/4 was way optimistic.  You can forget the published MTF curves if the assembly is sloppy.  I always start my search with the MTF curve.  Those at least show what the optical design is capable of (at infinity -- forget retrofocus for up close without floating elements).  But I have never tested a high speed 50mm from any manufacturer that did not show visible signs of decentering (one side of the frame visibly softer than the other).  Some say better assembly is part of what you pay for with the Leica lenses.  Perhaps that's also part of why MF optics are so much more expensive.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com