[rob1234]

Sharp enough if you haven't used any post processing to pimp the pics, which I doubt because I noticed most of the people who shoot digital use a lot of stuff to enhance their pics and then show them in various forums to "prove" that for instance a pretty mediocre Leica lens, the Summarit f1.5 that is a low resolution low contrast old glass can produce razor sharp pics wide open.

If I really have to judge the performance of a lens I look at the negatives or at unadulterated scans from positives.

There is no significant post-processing.

However, I'm not going to argue with you again as we clearly disagree about statements such as "unadulterated scans". All digital images have had some form of manipulation, whether it was by you or not!

PS I'm not trying to "prove" anything - if you think the little M50/1.4 is soft, then so be it.

[Cuthbert]

PS I'm not trying to "prove" anything - if you think the little M50/1.4 is soft, then so be it.

I never said that, I have a M50 f1.4 and it's one of the lens I use most, just I don't believe we can judge the quality of a lens from digital pictures, that's it.



This is my M50 f1,4 wide open, Portra160, LX aperture priority.



Same lens stepped down in a cold and wet morning...not ideal lighting but I assume it's a good pic to judge its performance in terms of sharpness, both are done without PP "improvements" (sharpening, contrast etc...) so I assume the casual viewer can appreciate better the real performance of the lens and what it gives to a picture.

[Dewman]

I never said that, I have a M50 f1.4 and it's one of the lens I use most, just I don't believe we can judge the quality of a lens from digital pictures, that's it.



This is my M50 f1,4 wide open, Portra160, LX aperture priority.



Same lens stepped down in a cold and wet morning...not ideal lighting but I assume it's a good pic to judge its performance in terms of sharpness, both are done without PP "improvements" (sharpening, contrast etc...) so I assume the casual viewer can appreciate better the real performance of the lens and what it gives to a picture.

I'm not sure what the object of this "conversation" is. To me, the object is to end up with an image that is as good as it can be made, regardless of how one arrives there. Both of the images show here leave a LOT to be desired. Very flat, no color saturation and the sharpness is nothing to write home about. To say that you can't judge a lens by digital images is pure bunk and we all know it. A GOOD lens will shine regardless of whether it's film OR digital. Just my .02 worth.

[Cuthbert]

I'm not sure what the object of this "conversation" is. To me, the object is to end up with an image that is as good as it can be made, regardless of how one arrives there. Both of the images show here leave a LOT to be desired. Very flat, no color saturation and the sharpness is nothing to write home about. To say that you can't judge a lens by digital images is pure bunk and we all know it. A GOOD lens will shine regardless of whether it's film OR digital. Just my .02 worth.

The two statements in bold are in contradiction, it's not your .02, you are claiming to talk for ALL (all who?).

Having said that the images I posted are NOT manipulated or improved, and for me they are fine as they are because they are genuine, while most of the stuff I see here are the same digital crap that fills of the DSLR forum with people who who post process so much that in the end what they get are completely synthetic images that looks like taken from a Michael Bay movie.

Then they claim "oh how cool this old lens is! How sharp it is! How contrasty it is!" etc...etc...etc...

Oh, have a nice day!

[mglowe]

The two statements in bold are in contradiction, it's not your .02, you are claiming to talk for ALL (all who?).

Having said that the images I posted are NOT manipulated or improved, and for me they are fine as they are because they are genuine, while most of the stuff I see here are the same digital crap that fills of the DSLR forum with people who who post process so much that in the end what they get are completely synthetic images that looks like taken from a Michael Bay movie.

Then they claim "oh how cool this old lens is! How sharp it is! How contrasty it is!" etc...etc...etc...

Oh, have a nice day!

Uh, genuine?

[Dewman]

The two statements in bold are in contradiction, it's not your .02, you are claiming to talk for ALL (all who?).

Having said that the images I posted are NOT manipulated or improved, and for me they are fine as they are because they are genuine, while most of the stuff I see here are the same digital crap that fills of the DSLR forum with people who who post process so much that in the end what they get are completely synthetic images that looks like taken from a Michael Bay movie.

Then they claim "oh how cool this old lens is! How sharp it is! How contrasty it is!" etc...etc...etc...

Oh, have a nice day!

If the images you have presented are any indication of your prowess with a camera, they speak for themselves.... as does your reply. The composition as well as the lighting, contrast and color saturation are sorely lacking. You need to instruct your photo finisher to change their processing chemicals as they are worn out, hence the yellowing of your images. If you would care to improve on your photographic technique, there are many fine posts on this site that will guide you in improving your skills as a photographer. At this point, they are very amateurish and look as if they were taken by a tourist with a Instamatic. But, don't be dismayed. If you apply yourself, at some point you might produce something worthwhile. However, you have a long, long way to go before that day arrives.

[bradsarno]

What a great lens. This 28mm f3.5 - great color, super sharp, lots of dimension and x-factor

[aurele]

I never said that, I have a M50 f1.4 and it's one of the lens I use most, just I don't believe we can judge the quality of a lens from digital pictures, that's it.

And why is it different to compare two lens on digital camera and to compare it on film, mind you ?

[Surnia]

M100/4, random creeper shot >_>

[cgchang]

My M50 f1.4 isn't the best due to some fungus or some other issue with the center element seen here https://flic.kr/p/nkmBp5. However when shooting in the right conditions and with the right precautions and post processing, I'm still able to get some nice images.

[Piotrek K]

Even if I have DA 40XS I also love my M 40. I tend to use this one in f 4.5 (it starts to be sharp enough at this aperture) - f8 range.

[Pixel-8]

I really like the shots with the smc-m 40. Don't really know why this lens sometimes gets a bad reputation, as mine is quite sharp when used properly.

Also cgchang, there is nothing to complain about with those (fungus spotted) M 501.4 shots. I think that you have proven that that particular lens has something special - even with, or perhaps because of the "flaw" - you use it quite well.

All this talk of lens quality independent of camera technique is a waste of breath. IMO we can all learn to improve our images by better technique.

[ChristianRock]

I recently acquired the M 75-150 / 4 and this little barrel impressed me:

What is impressive is your beautiful use of light! Well done.

[Jorgario]

What is impressive is your beautiful use of light! Well done.

Thank you very much Christian !!

[Dewman]

My M50 f1.4 isn't the best due to some fungus or some other issue with the center element seen here https://flic.kr/p/nkmBp5. However when shooting in the right conditions and with the right precautions and post processing, I'm still able to get some nice images.

Beautiful series. I especially like #2 with that magical bokeh! Magnificent lighting in that one, but #4 is also very good, IMHO. TFS.