bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Disclaimer: I did this 'test' purely for fun, not for pixel-peeping or for comparing MTF charts. I just wanted to shoot some simple comparisons between some 35's that I own in order to casually determine their individual personalities.
I thought there might be some fellow RFF'ers who might enjoy a quick glance at these lenses on the M 240 body to see things like colour cast, vignetting, bokeh, general sharpness, etc.
The cast of characters:
1 Leica Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH
2 Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5 NON-ASPH
3 Carl Zeiss T* Biogon 35mm F2.8
4 Jupiter-12 35mm F2.8 (Contax mount with adapter)
The setting: I chose a spot in my backyard in the shade, and used a chair as an impromptu tripod. All lenses were shot at F2.8 and approximately 0.8 meters from the subject.
The focal point was on the front dial of the Ansco 6x6 medium format camera (center camera with the red bellows).
The M 240 was set on AUTO WB and JPEG FINE mode. ISO at 400, and shutter speed was around 1/250. Lens detection was set to AUTO, therefore the Zeiss and Jupiter-12 did benefit from any correction. No alterations were made in Adobe apart from reducing the file size to suitable dimensions for web viewing.
First, the Summicron 35/2 ASPH:
NEXT, the Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5 NON-ASPH:
NEXT, the Carl Zeiss C-Biogon:
LASTLY, the Jupiter-12 35/2.8:
I will be posting some center crops soon for additional scrutiny.
Thanks for looking at my post, hope it's at least partially interesting.
I thought there might be some fellow RFF'ers who might enjoy a quick glance at these lenses on the M 240 body to see things like colour cast, vignetting, bokeh, general sharpness, etc.
The cast of characters:
1 Leica Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH
2 Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5 NON-ASPH
3 Carl Zeiss T* Biogon 35mm F2.8
4 Jupiter-12 35mm F2.8 (Contax mount with adapter)
The setting: I chose a spot in my backyard in the shade, and used a chair as an impromptu tripod. All lenses were shot at F2.8 and approximately 0.8 meters from the subject.
The focal point was on the front dial of the Ansco 6x6 medium format camera (center camera with the red bellows).
The M 240 was set on AUTO WB and JPEG FINE mode. ISO at 400, and shutter speed was around 1/250. Lens detection was set to AUTO, therefore the Zeiss and Jupiter-12 did benefit from any correction. No alterations were made in Adobe apart from reducing the file size to suitable dimensions for web viewing.
First, the Summicron 35/2 ASPH:
NEXT, the Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5 NON-ASPH:
NEXT, the Carl Zeiss C-Biogon:
LASTLY, the Jupiter-12 35/2.8:
I will be posting some center crops soon for additional scrutiny.
Thanks for looking at my post, hope it's at least partially interesting.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Re-examining my shots, it's interesting to note that the Zeiss Biogon has a slightly cooler colour cast than the other lenses. The Jupiter performs surprisingly well, although the bokeh has that typical signature 'busy' look that many Soviet lenses share.
Vignetting is especially noticeable on the Zeiss and the Jupiter, but that may be partially due to their lack of lens profiling in the the M 240.
Vignetting is especially noticeable on the Zeiss and the Jupiter, but that may be partially due to their lack of lens profiling in the the M 240.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
And now some center-crops for bokeh and OOF comparisons.
First, the Summicron 35/2 ASPH:
SECOND, the Summarit 35/2.5:
THIRD, the Zeiss Biogon:
FOURTH, the Jupiter-12:
First, the Summicron 35/2 ASPH:
SECOND, the Summarit 35/2.5:
THIRD, the Zeiss Biogon:
FOURTH, the Jupiter-12:
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Generally I don't see much to complain about with any of these lenses. They all do a decent job at F2.8, although I think there are subtle improvements with the Summicron. It's slightly sharper and the bokeh is more neutral.
In shooting a few other test shots (not posted here), I noticed significant vignetting with the Zeiss C-Biogon at F2.8, which came as a surprise to me.
In shooting a few other test shots (not posted here), I noticed significant vignetting with the Zeiss C-Biogon at F2.8, which came as a surprise to me.
Huss
Veteran
Nice results. With the Jupiter lens, did you have to try several before getting a 'good one'?
I've heard that there can be quite a difference in sample variation, especially with the 50 1.5 Jupiter 3 version.
I've heard that there can be quite a difference in sample variation, especially with the 50 1.5 Jupiter 3 version.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Huss -- this just happened to be a Jupiter-12 that came with a Kiev 4a body that I purchased online.
This particular Jupiter-12 seems to not have any major issues, it focuses and generally performs quite well. It must have been a good day at the lens factory, I lucked out with a good copy!
I owned a Jupiter-3 previously, a Soviet 85mm Sonnar clone. THAT particular lens did not perform well. It suffered from ghosting and all kinds of weird artifacts. It was wildly unpredictable, which was too bad.
This particular Jupiter-12 seems to not have any major issues, it focuses and generally performs quite well. It must have been a good day at the lens factory, I lucked out with a good copy!
I owned a Jupiter-3 previously, a Soviet 85mm Sonnar clone. THAT particular lens did not perform well. It suffered from ghosting and all kinds of weird artifacts. It was wildly unpredictable, which was too bad.
Huss
Veteran
Very cool for you Bobby, lucking out like that. I think I meant the Jupiter 5 for the 50 1.5
I've seen some people buy multiple copies of this lens to find a decent one. And they are not cheap anymore. It would seem to make more sense to buy a Canon 50 1.4 LTM, but then if one is set on getting a Jupiter 5..
It would be fun to go into the LeicaStore in Bev Hills and watch them recoil in horror upon seeing a Jupiter lens on my M!
I've seen some people buy multiple copies of this lens to find a decent one. And they are not cheap anymore. It would seem to make more sense to buy a Canon 50 1.4 LTM, but then if one is set on getting a Jupiter 5..
It would be fun to go into the LeicaStore in Bev Hills and watch them recoil in horror upon seeing a Jupiter lens on my M!
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I know, I've thought about that very thing. I find it quite hilarious to mount a cheap Soviet lens on an expensive German camera! And given the performance of the Jupiter, it sort of makes me re-think my rationale for spending $$$ on expensive glass.
But once a gear addict, always a gear addict. I'm so easily swayed by GAS, I can't even pretend to say I'm in 'recovery'. It's not 'if' I am going to need a new fix, it's more like 'when'.
But once a gear addict, always a gear addict. I'm so easily swayed by GAS, I can't even pretend to say I'm in 'recovery'. It's not 'if' I am going to need a new fix, it's more like 'when'.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Very surprising. I'm looking at crops. J-12 seems to be great if not the best and Summarit is just awful in terms of Ilford.
I did not find J-8 and J-3 bokeh to be busy@buzzy, BTW.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I looked at the first batch of images full screen, prior to seeing what lenses were users. And I'm posting without reading any comments that would bias my views.
- The vignetting of the 3rd lens really jumped out to me. Maybe its the darker image but I really didn't care for the results relative to the other lenses. I love the ZM 35/2; I was surprised this was the 2.8.
- The distortion in the last image bothers me. Other than that and slightly less contrast, it looks pretty good. Its definitely better than the three J12s I've used in the past. that said, my biggest problem with the J12 was flare when light sources were anywhere near the front element so this may be a less challenging situation for it.
- The vignetting of the 3rd lens really jumped out to me. Maybe its the darker image but I really didn't care for the results relative to the other lenses. I love the ZM 35/2; I was surprised this was the 2.8.
- The distortion in the last image bothers me. Other than that and slightly less contrast, it looks pretty good. Its definitely better than the three J12s I've used in the past. that said, my biggest problem with the J12 was flare when light sources were anywhere near the front element so this may be a less challenging situation for it.
DominikDUK
Well-known
I'm looking at crops. J-12 seems to be great if not the best and Summarit is just awful in terms of Ilford.
I did not find J-8 and J-3 bokeh to be busy@buzzy, BTW.
I have to say I am a bit dissappointed by the Summarit while the Summicron is clearly the best the Biogon and J12 seem to be nearly equals with maybe a slight advantage to the Biogon but the Summarit seems to be inferior the much cheaper J12. Weird.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Revisiting this thread I have to emphasize that this wasn't a very scientific test. Looking at the images again (many months later) I am also surprised by the results. The J-12 is pretty good, especially considering its Proletarian origins and low price-point.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
No-no-nono, J-12 origins ain't proletarian, but called "Biogon 35 2.8".
Erland
Member
Comparing where the DOF is on the wood, I'd say both the Zeiss and Summarit are just a wee bit focused further away, and thus the "ilford" part is more out of focus than the other two. But the Jupiter seems to be more like a f3.1 than 2.8 comparing DOF as well? I love older lenses though, character and all.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That Jupiter is n slouch!
jim0266
Established
Did you compare vignetting uncoded vs coded?
I found on the M-E the Zeiss C-Biogon 2.8 worked best when coded as a 28 non-asph Elmarit to eliminate vignetting.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Is that a Werra on the right, by the way? Such a cool-looking camera—is it fun to use?
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Yes, that's a Werra -- I have 2 of them. I got cursed by the ghost of Eric Honecker after buying them, both of my Werra cameras broke immediately after purchase. The lens / integral shutter system on the Werra is terribly complex, and AFAIK virtually impossible to repair.
I kept the camera bodies as historical mementos, they're definitely an interesting design.
ellisson
Well-known
Interesting comparison of these lenses. Results good with all with only slight differences to my eye. Chr aberration around the lens front and top front camera edge on the crops with the summicron and summarit, not an issue on the uncropped images. My question is, which of the four lenses do you enjoy working with the most, i.e., focusing, aperture change, use in brighter light, etc...or...looks?