A fun test: 4 different 35mm lenses on M 240

[bobby_novatron]

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. 🙂

 

[bobby_novatron]

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.

 

[bobby_novatron]

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:

 

[bobby_novatron]

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.

 

[Huss]

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.

 

[bobby_novatron]

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.

 

[Huss]

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!

 

[bobby_novatron]

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'. 🙂

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!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

😱 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]

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.

 

[DominikDUK]

😱 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.

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]

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.]

No-no-nono, J-12 origins ain't proletarian, but called "Biogon 35 2.8".

 

[Erland]

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]

That Jupiter is n slouch!

 

[jim0266]

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.

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]

Is that a Werra on the right, by the way? Such a cool-looking camera—is it fun to use?

 

[bobby_novatron]

Is that a Werra on the right, by the way? Such a cool-looking camera—is it fun to use?

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]

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?