50mm shootout!

[ktran]

I posted this over as a reply in a thread I started over in the LTM board re: the Summitar vs. Jupiter-8, but I thought it'd be relevant to the Micro Four Thirds board as well, considering I just shot 12 photos using different 50mm (and 50-ish) lenses!


Ok, here's my big "50mm shootout" (plus others). Mind you, they're mounted on my Olympus E-PL2 (cheaper to test with than processing another roll of Sensia), so the angle of view is that of a short tele, but the rendering characteristics should still be very much 50mm.

The lenses were all mounted on the camera on fixed tripod position. Tungsten white balance, straight-from-camera jpeg. I focused (manually, of course) on the low "E" string, on the bottom-left tuning post (ie: the string windings). I hope this test shows both the in-focus and out-of-focus characteristics of each lens. I tested the Summitar, the Jupiter-8, as well as my F-Mount Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AIS. For fun, I shot my Pentax Auto-110 50mm f/2.8 lens, both wide open and with a homemade aperture disc giving an approximate f/4. Lastly, I included a shot of the Olympus kit zoom mkII @ 42mm f/5.6 (wide open at longest end)

Summitar @ f/2


summitar f2 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Summitar at f/2.8:


summitar f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Summitar @ f/4


summitar f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @f/2


jupiter-8 f2 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @f/2.8


jupiter-8 f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @ f/4


jupiter-8 f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @f/1.8


nikkor ais f1.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @ f/2.8


nikkor ais f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @ f/4


nikkor ais f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Pentax Auto-110 @f/2.8


pentax auto-110 f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Pentax Auto-110 @ approx f/4


pentax auto-110 f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Olympus Kit Zoom @ 42mm f/5.6


Olympus kit lens 42mm f5.6 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

 

[N.delaRua]

My two observations. i like the summitar most, and the 4/3 camera has no depth because its not truly provide the depth of a 50 mm.

P.S. When I first got a digital, I enjoyed fulfilling my nerdy passion of testing multiple lenes, but found it was photographically worthless as some bad lens produce some great photographs. My Lubitel 166 convinced me of that.

 

[35mmdelux]

nice comparisons. thanks -

 

[ktran]

My two observations. i like the summitar most, and the 4/3 camera has no depth because its not truly provide the depth of a 50 mm.

P.S. When I first got a digital, I enjoyed fulfilling my nerdy passion of testing multiple lenes, but found it was photographically worthless as some bad lens produce some great photographs. My Lubitel 166 convinced me of that.

Well, I originally did a comparison of the Summitar and Jupiter-8 lenses quite a few months ago (nearly a year, in fact) because I happened to have a couple of frames left over on the roll of Sensia in my Leica IIIc and was meeting a friend in a coffee shop. I posted that test, and it sparked a bit of a discussion, so, on a cold and freezing-rainy Montreal night last night, I killed an hour shooting these tests 🙂

The fact that it took me this long should tell you how much I "enjoy" doing these tests!

The lens is still a 50mm lens -- the characteristics are that of a full-frame camera, at that distance, cropped. With the same angle of view (moved closer in), a given FF camera would yield more separation between subject and background, yes. So I agree with you, and I am aware of the differences.

In any case, don't worry, I'm not going down the winding road of obsessive lens-testing! 🙂

 

[raid]

Obsessive lens testing can be addicitve.
It hits me once a year.