jvr
Well-known
Here you can see the crops took from the center of the image (sorry for the messy pictures, but it was late last night and I was in a hurry and didn't clean up the room). Tumbnail names should be enough to indicate source...
Attachments
jvr
Well-known
Now, a corner. It's not _exactly_ a corner because I had to crop 600x600 and I preferred to show something more than some curtains. Nevertheless, differences would be a bit bigger.
Attachments
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
Another corner, where the difference between lenses is less. Bad "test protocol"? bad camera alignment? different distance and better focus by chance? decentering? I don't know, but this is what usually happens in real life... 
Attachments
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
Finally, infinity. I took the pictures this morning and it was a very overcast day. So, I took the liberty to slightly enhance contrast (using white level) on the crops. Enhancement was the same for all lenses.
I didn't test the Ultron f1.9 but it would be bad wide-open (my sample behaves worse on infinity than, say, at 5m).
Full frame (Ultron and Summicron @ f2):
I didn't test the Ultron f1.9 but it would be bad wide-open (my sample behaves worse on infinity than, say, at 5m).
Full frame (Ultron and Summicron @ f2):
Attachments
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
jvr
Well-known
Wrap-up
Wrap-up
(note: I didn't post crops at f8, infinity because they were exactly the same for both lenses. BTW, I'm happy to share the DNGs or full JPGs, if someone wants to pixel-peep by him/herself).
Ok, some wrap-up:
First, although I can't assure that I didn't move the tripod when changing lenses, fact is the old Ultron has a longer focal length than either the new Ultron or the Summicron.
Globally, the Ultron f1.9 is a bit worse than the other Ultron and the Summicron (and yes, it is focusing ok on my M8).
Please remind yourselves that these are 100% crops! A 30x40 cm print, sharpened, and viewed from normal distance shows less difference and I don't know how many of you people print this big - my Epson R2400 only goes to Super B...
At all distances, the Ultron is almost as sharp as the Summicron in the center but shows a bit of loss in the corners (and what is the worse corner depends on the focusing distance, on this test). It is, however, much better than my old Ultron. Moreover, the kind of loss in the corners can be irritating, especially if they are OOF and a bit busy (I'll post some real life examples). Difference seems to decrease with distance: at infinity, I really can't tell difference in the center between the lenses, even wide-open.
At f8, I am really pressed to find a difference, even at 100%. The good news is that f2.8 is enough to almost equalize the lenses, at least in printing.
I hope the photos are useful and now I'm going to sleep...
Wrap-up
(note: I didn't post crops at f8, infinity because they were exactly the same for both lenses. BTW, I'm happy to share the DNGs or full JPGs, if someone wants to pixel-peep by him/herself).
Ok, some wrap-up:
First, although I can't assure that I didn't move the tripod when changing lenses, fact is the old Ultron has a longer focal length than either the new Ultron or the Summicron.
Globally, the Ultron f1.9 is a bit worse than the other Ultron and the Summicron (and yes, it is focusing ok on my M8).
Please remind yourselves that these are 100% crops! A 30x40 cm print, sharpened, and viewed from normal distance shows less difference and I don't know how many of you people print this big - my Epson R2400 only goes to Super B...
At all distances, the Ultron is almost as sharp as the Summicron in the center but shows a bit of loss in the corners (and what is the worse corner depends on the focusing distance, on this test). It is, however, much better than my old Ultron. Moreover, the kind of loss in the corners can be irritating, especially if they are OOF and a bit busy (I'll post some real life examples). Difference seems to decrease with distance: at infinity, I really can't tell difference in the center between the lenses, even wide-open.
At f8, I am really pressed to find a difference, even at 100%. The good news is that f2.8 is enough to almost equalize the lenses, at least in printing.
I hope the photos are useful and now I'm going to sleep...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Thank you for the wonderful test.
Your descriptions of the differences between the three lenses have been very helpful and borne out by the images.
I wish I was in Europe so that I could send you my ZM 28 for comparison and/or buy you a drink (ideally while listening to your awesome stereo!).
It's amazing how much extra one has to pay for the advantages of the summicron, isn't it?
Your descriptions of the differences between the three lenses have been very helpful and borne out by the images.
I wish I was in Europe so that I could send you my ZM 28 for comparison and/or buy you a drink (ideally while listening to your awesome stereo!).
It's amazing how much extra one has to pay for the advantages of the summicron, isn't it?
Last edited:
jvr
Well-known
Well, thanks!! I would gladly invite you to share a drink and listen to a bit of music (I see you're also one of those RRFers that also blinks an eye on audio...
). If you ever come over this direction, just PM me.And I'm sure your ZM 28 is great: judging from the IQ I get from my ZM 21, it has to be wonderful. It would be, indeed, insctructive, to compare lenses.
Next installment, trying to show some focus shift and some comparison with the D700+35/2 AF. But first, I'm out to play some golf!
Finally, yes, we do have to pay a big extra amount of money to get a relatively small amount of IQ. That's like in audio: I'm sure there are better cost/benefit choices than my Dartzeel pre/pwr but nothing sounds like it, until now.
Rgd the lenses, I think most people would be more than very happy using a (good sample of) CV 28/2 instead of a Cron. If I needed full reliability (meaning: be sure I won't get any strange combination of bokeh, slight focus shift AND fall-off in the most important shot of my life, from which I depend to earn money to pay for my kids' meals), I would go with the Cron, no hesitation (it's a work tool, it'd better be reliable). If I had all the money in the world (or at least enough...
) I would still buy the Cron.But if I want a good, very competent lens, that will allow me to take a vast majority of my photos and be very happy with them, then the Ultron is a hell of a rational choice.
You know, one of the good/bad things of using a D700 a lot, is that you get to shoot at 3200 ISO without dire consequences. This has the effect of making you believe that very fast lenses (unless for DOF control) will soon be a lost art from the past...
Cheers!
LCT
ex-newbie
Thank you much!
Your test confirms pretty well what i thought about sharpness at f/2 but the prices are not the same needless to say.
About focus shift, did you take some pics around f/4?
As you know, focus shift does no appear usually at full aperture and is compensated by DoF at f/8 and slower.
Best.
Your test confirms pretty well what i thought about sharpness at f/2 but the prices are not the same needless to say.
About focus shift, did you take some pics around f/4?
As you know, focus shift does no appear usually at full aperture and is compensated by DoF at f/8 and slower.
Best.
jvr
Well-known
Thank you much!
Your test confirms pretty well what i thought about sharpness at f/2 but the prices are not the same needless to say.
About focus shift, did you take some pics around f/4?
As you know, focus shift does no appear usually at full aperture and is compensated by DoF at f/8 and slower.
Best.
Welcome, my pleasure! At least, I was able to cross this item out of my task list, it hanged there for an eternity...
Sharpness: yes, I understand you. "Almost as sharp" is definitely not "as sharp" (especially in the corners, at 100% magnification).
But believe that's not even remotely the reason why I'm yet to "retire" my Cron. My major gripe with the Ultron has to do with the way it renders OOF in the corners (and that has to do with the it renders corners, period.). It's not the "unsharpnes" per se (if I really need to have a flat surface all sharp, I'll probabably be using a tripod and align the camera carefully and I won't be using f2, either, since I'm on tripod. BTW, if I use f2 and I don't align the camera properly, I risk some unsharpness in the corners, just because DOF can be really small in digital - especially when you print large). It's more the way it renders corners that bothers me once in a while. And since I have the Cron...
Focus shift: I'll try it out. For the kind of photos I use my 28 for, this is usually not a problem. I tend to use it either wide-open or around f8-16 (hyperfocus). Anyway, most the subjects I photograph (people...) have a tendency to move when they shouldn't and I know that most of my unfocused pictures come from either bad focus (my miss, not the lens shift) or they moved (or I moved!).
Not to mention that I get more blurred pictures because my M8 has a VERY hard and gritty shutter release, than blurred pictures because the Ultron is "soft" wide-open or any other limitation (including focus-shift). Even in pictures at f4 or f5.6, I can't be sure of focus shift. I don'y have many at those apertures, BTW, because every stop is critical to be shooting at ISO <= 640 AND speed >= 1/30s. I confess I have some gripes with the M8 rendering above 640 ISO and, although I am able to shoot my M3 at 1/15 without problem and I can get even lower with my Hexar AF, 1/30 seems to be the limit on my M8 (damn the shutter release!!!!!!).
Let me qualify that a bit better: in my normal use with the Ultron, I have yet to see a shot where I am SURE the culprit IS the focus shift (maybe on test shots, I will see!
). Or even better: I don't remember a shot where I could say "Damn! I would have nailed this one with the Cron, because of focus shift!". But I have a few that bring home the question "Damn! Would I get that crazy look in the corner with the Cron?". And lots of them that make me wonder "Why the hell didn't I bring the Epson, that I can shoot at least 1 stop slower without shake?" Or even "Damn! This week I'll go the extreme route and open my M8 and adjust the shutter release feel!!!" (another nice thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/27130-adjusting-shutter-release-feel.html).So, at least for me, the question is not "Does it have focus shift?" but "Is the focus shift a problem?". With the 35/1.4, it was. With the 28/2, not yet. And, even if I detect a huge amount of focus shift, that won't change the way it behaves during normal use (normal, here, meaning "the way I typically use it", of course!).
A final confession: given my (not so good) experience with the old Ultron, I was SINCERELY expecting the new Ultron to go the same route as the 35/1.4 Nokton (ie, FedExed back). So, I really had a strong bias against the lens (which proves how much one can suffer from GAS: I have a Cron, I didn't like the Ultron, I buy the new one anyway. Makes sense, huh?
). Surprisingly, I liked it.Cheers!
PS with all this stuff, all I could manage was to totally impair my ability to sell my old Ultron here in RFF... Should have kept the old Ultron photos private... eheheheh
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
jvr, lots of great info. thanks for doing these tests. I use 28s differently, I've owned the ZM 28/2.8 biogon, cv 28/3.5, and 1.9. I shoot mostly wide open to 5.6 max, often with subjects 1-2m away, so quite a bit different from your f2 / f8 methods. I'm sure I'll come across a cv 28/2 one of these days, and I expect it to be a nice lens for the price.