YALT - Test of 8 50mm lenses

Nope, Gabriel, I think you're right; the Summilux and 'cron and finally the Canon were the clear "winners" here. The others showed varying amounts of veiling glare as well as some nasty CA.

Good test,

Ron


Gabriel M.A. said:
Really, you think the J-3 did better than the Summilux? Hmmm.

Now, that is surprising. Perhaps my monitor needs to be recalibrated? :( (not being sarcastic -- I may be missing what you're seeing)
Click to expand...
 
MikeL said:
Thanks Gabriel! You better watch out though, Raid might be annoyed at the ease of testing with digital. :)
Click to expand...

Mike,
I am not annoyed since I do my tests because I enjoy them.

Raid
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
You're welcome; thanks for the input. Yes, I am thinking about doing B&W shots.

Hopefully sometime later this week, looks like I'm booked for the next two days with various errands. This time I won't forget the Sonnar :eek:
Click to expand...

That would be great.

Got any Tessars at home? ;)
 
I guess I'm a complete contrarian--I liked the dreamy glare of the uncoated Summar the best! It was the worst technically, but produced the most memorable image in the group.

Funny how that sometimes works....
 
Just when I think I've been here too long...you get an M8 and I didn't know about it. Whoa! Well, I'm glad to see the old glass being tested on this machine, and what a demanding test! And I'm especially glad you tested the the Canon at f2.0, which was my favorite rendering from the last test (I believe) with your very patient gf. :) To my amateurish eyes, it seems that with just a touch more contrast, it would be pretty much equal to the cron, which was my favorite (under this condition, anyway). And yeah, the Summitar was real nice. Thanks for the test!
 
remrf said:
The Summilux looked the best to me followed by the Cannon. The last and first shot. However because your subject was backlit none of the uncoated lenses really had a chance. An interesting test none the less.
Click to expand...


Which Canon? The 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.5? Please answer the 1.4 or I gotta spend (expel?) more GAS.

Thanks,

Bill
 
motosacto said:
I guess I'm a complete contrarian--I liked the dreamy glare of the uncoated Summar the best! It was the worst technically, but produced the most memorable image in the group.

Funny how that sometimes works....
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I've kept this lens for this reason and more. It has very low contrast, so I will use it when the scene/subject calls for that. The Summarit exhibits flare too, but well-controlled compared to the Summar. And it's a "fast" lens, besides having a circular aperture and low contrast, which is also one of my dear lenses.
 
SteveM(PA) said:
Just when I think I've been here too long...you get an M8 and I didn't know about it. Whoa! Well, I'm glad to see the old glass being tested on this machine, and what a demanding test! And I'm especially glad you tested the the Canon at f2.0, which was my favorite rendering from the last test (I believe) with your very patient gf. :) To my amateurish eyes, it seems that with just a touch more contrast, it would be pretty much equal to the cron, which was my favorite (under this condition, anyway). And yeah, the Summitar was real nice. Thanks for the test!
Click to expand...
No problem! And well, I don't go around tooting horns. There are a number of things I'm sure I could have created threads about, but they'd just go into oblivion :eek: I could try? :confused:

My gf is very patient, yes. She is, after all, with me! That demonstrates patience! ;)

The Summitar is always surprising me. I have two...I think I need to get rid of one...but the sentimental in me says "non!"
 
Davor said:
Wow, that Summilux really blew the others away. I was suprised over the how the Canon did.
Click to expand...

This should also answer Bill's question: The Canon 50 f/1.2 is a very underrated lens. People seek the 50mm f/1.5 because it's rare usually, not because of its image rendition; the 50mm f/1.4 is celebrated because it is nice and crisp, an "improvement" over the 50 f/1.5; it was also a design change that Canon had to make for various reasons, one of them being economical.

I think that if you can live with the glare/flare of the 50 f/1.2 wide open, you don't need the Noctilux 50 f/1.2; it is not a substitute, though, I've seen samples.

The pre-asph Summilux is the lens that I use regularly; it is a great every-day, every condition lens. Stopped down to f/2.8 makes very nice images, but I only stop it down when I *must*. Wide open is just fine :)
 
Very interesting test, with a difficult subject. It's soo tempting to see how easy these things are with digital. But I don't want a 2nd mortgage (and a 1st divorce).
I also keep a Summar for the dreamy look, and a Summitar because I like the look. My Canon 1.2 is currently living on my M3, and they coexist very happily.
This test has at least proved what I always considered to be some of my most interesting glass. Looking forward to a B&W test with the Sonnar, another of my favorite lenses.
Thanks for the effort you expended. I bet it was also fun....

Harry
 
It was fun :) ...once the fogging went away. It's too cold outside, and I shot these inside a conservatory (it's a greenhouse), which of course is very humid. I thought I had waited enough. The Summilux was fine. But when I started using the other lenses...they fogged up quickly! I took all the lenses out...it felt like I had taken out artificial ice. The Summarit took the longest. I guess it has the most metal of any of the other lenses.
 
i'm stunned by the quality of the canon @ f2.
But for me the scene renders "best" with the summar or sumarit. This is because of the setting - in a Victorian conservatory the soft dreaminess of these lenses reminds me of the images of early photographers. For a different subject i'd use a different lens and that would be "best".

thanks for posting these Gabriel!
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
It was fun :) ...once the fogging went away. It's too cold outside, and I shot these inside a conservatory (it's a greenhouse), which of course is very humid. I thought I had waited enough. The Summilux was fine. But when I started using the other lenses...they fogged up quickly! I took all the lenses out...it felt like I had taken out artificial ice. The Summarit took the longest. I guess it has the most metal of any of the other lenses.
Click to expand...

My first thought on these, especially the uncoated, was that your lenses were fogged! :) Good test. You can tell the uncoated lenses from the thumbnail. I like the tabbed 'cron the best, particularly for this kind of shot. The oof area is less distracting and less flare effect.

:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Will ;)

Yeah...the Summicron and the Summitar will be seeing more usage now. I had relegated the Summitar exclusively to B&W film; not the case anymore, it seems.
 
hm, i just cannot see how people are so overwhelmed by the canon. clearly a decent lens, but nothing special to my eye.
on the other hand, also the summicron might be regarded as "unspecific" - if it was not a kind of ultimate reference. i ask myself why i like it, but there's no doubt, i do.

concerning the summitar - i also own two (one coated, one uncoated), and sometimes i tell myself i should sell at least one of them, but i cannot make up my mind finally. well, if sell at all, it won't be the uncoated one :)

thanks for your interesting comparison.
thanks for testing on M8 - it shows how those old lenses (summar!) offer unique qualities also in the digital age.

cheers,
sebastian
 
Gabriel,

great test ... thanks

1) do you have the 50/lux at 2.0 ? or did I miss it in the shots

2) to my eyes, the best was the summicron followed very closely by the summilux ... and then Canon 50/1.2

Both the modern cron and the pre-asph lux are underrated lenses.

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom