Originally posted by nanao. Strange thing, he finds the 77 better even wide open than 31 (more specifically, he tests the 31 ONLY wide open).
I always thought the 31 is supposed to be optically perfect?! Any thoughts about the differences to Summilux, owners? (come on, we all know it's just a product as well with a German price factor) - my suspicion would go to (default) in-camera sharpening levels. All just guessing of course, he doesn't mention any settings, even whether he shot jpegs or raws.
I just find the visible differences quite striking. Thinking about Leica, just based on this article and his site.
I don't really think this is a fair comparison, as it is not just a $4,500 lens versus a $1,000 lens comparison, it's also a comparison of a 18 MP full frame no anti aliasing filter camera versus a 14 mp crop sensor camera. Or if you want to put it in terms of a total price comparison.
A $11,500 kit versus a $2,000 kit.
However, even if you could somehow control for this difference (someone much wealthier than most should test them both on a 4/3rds camera haha), it should come as no surprise to Pentax users that the Summilux performs better wide open than the FA31; it is a $4,500 f/1.4 lens, and that extra money you pay is for that extra performance wide open. It'd be like comparing the 50 mm f/1.0 Leica Nocticulux (sp?) to a good Pentax 50 mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 -- which lens do you think would win that bokeh challenge?
I'd like to see how the Leica Summilux does against that Canon 35 f/1.4L -- both on full frame cameras. I think that would be an interesting comparison.