50mm f1.4 & f1.5 Max Aperture tests - Summarit, Summilux v2, Nikkor f1.4, Summilux ASPH

B

brusby

Well-known
Local time
9:18 AM
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
1,148
I just set up a very quick comparison of a few lenses to see how they would look doing window lit portraits at max aperture and I figured I'd share the results here for anyone interested.

Tested: clean copies of all four lenses, same target, same lighting and same white balance, using Leica SL2, mounted on small tripod. No editing done to any image.

There are 2 images for each of the four lenses. One is a full view and the second is 100% crop with annotation for quick check of resolution. Taken inside a small back room adjacent to a door with a large window to the outside.

Feel free to click through to the original Flickr page if you'd like to view the images at full resolution.

Also, feel free to comment or add your own photos for comparison purposes.

CONCLUSION: I wouldn't hesitate to use any of these lenses wide open for portraits except possibly the Nikkor. It's a lovely lens but a bit too soft and hazy looking for my tastes at f1.4. I know it cleans up wonderfully by f2. Of course I'm not really testing here for other considerations such as bokeh or resistance to flaring.

50mm Summarit f1.5 LTM
01a Summarit by Brusby, on Flickr

01b summarit close by Brusby, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
santino said:
The Lux V2 is awesome 👍. It has that pop and seems to render more naturally than the Asph.
Click to expand...
I agree, it's a lovely lens.

Sonnar Brian said:
The Summarit seems to preserve shadow details- lower contrast.
Click to expand...
Yep, could end up being a nice plus. I actually like my portraits just a bit on the lower contrast side and often find I have to back it off some in post.

This lens surprised me. Based on years of seeing kinda fuzzy, low contrast images online, I wasn't expecting much. But it could be very nice, especially for the kind of portraits I like. It's got nice contrast without being too extreme, beautiful, slightly soft, almost pastel colors, plus a nice kind of dreamy feel, particularly away from the center.

I just got the lens a few days ago, cleaned a bit of gunk from the elements, and am really looking forward to using it for some real portraits.
 
Kudos to the OP for having done these tests. The results are certainly interesting, with good illustrative images.

A stay thought from me. I wonder about the 'urge' to photograph with f/1.4 lenses wide open. Why this?

I have two Nikon 50/1.4 Ds and one Nikon 50/2.0 AI. I don't use them a lot, but when I do they are set at f/8, f/5.6 or f/4 at their widest. It's well known that lenses resolve best at around two stops down from their widest.

In the 1980s I had a 50/1.5 Summarit M. It was by far my favourite lens, sharp as anything from f/4 and down. Even better rendering than the legendary 50/2.8 Elmar which I also had. Both now sold. Sadly.

Almost all of today's digital cameras make fine results at ISO settings unheard of even a decade ago. My now-ancient Pansonic Lumix GF1 with its 14-42 kit lens gives me astoundingly good images even with 10 MP or 12 MP resolution.

In saying all this I'm in no way pointing an accusatory finger at anyone who likes going wide open. Only wondering what is the attraction?
 
The attraction for me lies in the shallow DOF and the way out of focus areas are rendered.

I'm seldom after définition per se.
 
DownUnder said:
Kudos to the OP for having done these tests. The results are certainly interesting, with good illustrative images.

A stay thought from me. I wonder about the 'urge' to photograph with f/1.4 lenses wide open. Why this?

I have two Nikon 50/1.4 Ds and one Nikon 50/2.0 AI. I don't use them a lot, but when I do they are set at f/8, f/5.6 or f/4 at their widest. It's well known that lenses resolve best at around two stops down from their widest.

In the 1980s I had a 50/1.5 Summarit M. It was by far my favourite lens, sharp as anything from f/4 and down. Even better rendering than the legendary 50/2.8 Elmar which I also had. Both now sold. Sadly.

Almost all of today's digital cameras make fine results at ISO settings unheard of even a decade ago. My now-ancient Pansonic Lumix GF1 with its 14-42 kit lens gives me astoundingly good images even with 10 MP or 12 MP resolution.

In saying all this I'm in no way pointing an accusatory finger at anyone who likes going wide open. Only wondering what is the attraction?
Click to expand...
It’s not an attraction; it’s the performance point at which you can tell the difference between the lenses best. At f5.6, the difference would mostly be contrast except at the very edges.

@brusby is this the first/11891 or the second/11728 50 Summilux ASPH?
 
DownUnder said:
A stay thought from me. I wonder about the 'urge' to photograph with f/1.4 lenses wide open. Why this?
Click to expand...
I know most lenses will be plenty sharp and contrasty closed down a few stops, so they start acting more similar than dissimilar. I want to know how these lenses perform wide open where 1) I'll likely be using them for the natural light people pics I often do because I like the shallow depth of field and ability to shoot at lowest ISO, and 2) the differences among the various lenses I have available to me will be most apparent. The unique characteristics of each lens are more likely to be expressed wide open -- at least the ones I'm likely to be using. It's those differences I'm interested in trying to put to good use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom