mfogiel
Veteran
I have been promising myself for some time, to simplify my gear selection somewhat, and as I am a bit of a fanatic of 50mm lenses, I thought that comparing some of the 50/2 legends might be a good place to start.
Let me immediately precise, that I am a B&W film photographer only, and whatever my conclusions about these lenses could be, they may not be relevant to colour/digital users.
A 50mm lens is the most versatile animal there is. It is still very easy to focus and frame on a rangefinder, yet, if somewhat fast, it can also be pretty accurately focused on an SLR, with the added benefit of being able to view precisely what is in the frame, and without the need to recompose for wide open portraits.
I like the 50’s for portraiture too – they might be just behind in preferences, after the 55-60mm lenses, that offer a slightly tighter framing with a similar DOF.
For this test, I have also experimented with a new film – as my reserves of APX 100 and Plus X are drying out, I wanted to have a go at RPX 100 – apparently Rollei’s suggested replacement for these other films going out of production.
The lenses were:
- Leica DR Summicron 50/2 on a Leica M4
- Leica Summicron R 50/2 1st version on a Leica R4s2
- Nikon Nikkor 50/2 H.C. on Nikon F2
- Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 on Nikon F3
20136812 by mfogiel, on Flickr
I took a stable tripod, enough film, and set out to visit a garden I always wanted to see in the nearby Menton – La Serre de la Madone – a charming creation of Lawrence Johnston, an American garden lover, and also the creator of the famous Hidcote Manor in the UK.
It is always pleasant to take photographs in a place you see for the first time. There is a new intensity in your perception, which over time withers away. Perhaps it is a result of our evolutionary reaction to a new environment, which needs to be quickly evaluated, to enhance orientation and reassure no dangers are present. It is easier to see the forms and patterns, when you see something fresh.
I was not interested to find the ultimate sharpness or whatever other singular trait of a lens, but rather to verify in the field, how four competent lenses perform in a broad range of settings. The tripod and a relatively sharp film assure, that it will be difficult for me to obtain better technical results in everyday handheld photo taking.
The lenses here, are of similar basic specifications, with the Makro Planar being the exception for its close focus correction, but while the difference in price is quite big ( 30 EUR for Nikkor and 1000 EUR for Makro Planar, with the Summicrons falling in between), how big is the difference in effective output?
Is it reasonable, that we agonize over internet reviews, and seek the holy grail of lens perfection?
Let’s look at the results.
The first picture, has actually been made as last, and will explain a lot of subsequent differences. While a lot of people write a lot of words about which lens is sharper than another, how many of them actually know if their lenses focus as expected?
Given, that after the first frame, the battery in my F3 died, I have used both Nikon mount lenses on the F2, which adds some extra flavour to this test:
FOCUS COMPARISON by mfogiel, on Flickr
As you may know, the single factor, which deteriorates the resolution of a lens in a given plane of focus the most, is... the precision of the focus itself. As you open up your lens, and shorten the subject distance, the acceptable DOF narrows.
In case of 50mm f 2.0 lenses wide open (following the DOF Master calculator), the acceptable dof at 1m is around 4 cm, at 1.3 m is about 8cm and at 1.5 m is about 10cm. I normally avoid getting closer to the subject than 130-150cm, unless I do not fear facial distortion, however, to get the best "sparkle" out of a portrait, or best subject isolation for close up settings, the focus precision is paramount.
What we see on the chart, is, that the DR Summicron on my M4 is spot on, and so is the Makro Planar on the F2 ( note the incredible contrast of this lens wide open), BUT, on the same camera, the Nikkor is front focusing at least 4 cm, and on The R4, the Summicron R is back focusing slightly. It is clear, that this must be accounted for, when you chose your camera/lens combo, otherwise your tools cannot perform as expected. In case of Nikons F2 and F3, luckily a lot of different focusing screens are available, so you should try to match each lens to the body/screen combination.
Let's have a look now at some photographs. I have tried to make the comparison as fair as I could - adjusting slightly the scans to the same size, and brightness matching all the photographs as far as possible.
The post processing has been minimal, with my typical slight curves and contrast adjustments, and no burning or dodging has been applied. Only the portrait photo has been slightly more taken care of, because I did not want to disappoint the charming lady, who agreed to pose for me. If you want to pixel peep or even download and print these photos for the sake of comparison, you are welcome to do so - you will find virtually full size files on my flickr.
Last word, before we start looking at the photographs: I have used Rollei RPX 100 film here, exposed at EI 64, and developed it in rodinal 1+45 for 15 minutes at 20C - agitation every 3 minutes. The result has been very good, there were no problems with extreme contrast, the grain and sharpness are ok, and the nice bonus, is that this film dries completely flat. Everything has been scanned on Nikon CS900 at 4000dpi.
This is a typical "F8 and be there" shot, with lenses set to infinity at f8.0.
50mm f2.0 LENS COMPARISON_1 by mfogiel, on Flickr
I have looked at it at 100% on the screen for some time, and cannot find any major difference in sharpness. Perhaps the best resolution comes from the DR Summicron, but it is a small difference, and could be attributed to the absence of mirror slap. You can already see, that the DR and Nikkor exhibit lower contrast, the Summicron R somewhat higher, and the MP highest of them all, however, the range of tones delivered is superb in all four cases. I would welcome your observations, but my preliminary judgement is, that this is a tie.
Next scene, is a torture test for reflections - a pool of water with blooming algae and a host of pin sharp light hotspots from the sharp mediterranean sun. The focus was set to 1.5m , and aperture to f11.
50mm f2.0 LENS COMPARISON_3 by mfogiel, on Flickr
As you can see in detail, the Nikkor and Summicron R have a little bit of blooming and some ray like effects around the specular highlights. The MP is very well controlled, while the unexpectedly good performer is also the DR Summicron, which notwithstanding the oldest coatings, manages to control the reflections pretty well. Perhaps I would give the MP the lead here, with the Dr coming second, and the other lenses following, but frankly all four photos look perfectly acceptable.
To be continued...
Let me immediately precise, that I am a B&W film photographer only, and whatever my conclusions about these lenses could be, they may not be relevant to colour/digital users.
A 50mm lens is the most versatile animal there is. It is still very easy to focus and frame on a rangefinder, yet, if somewhat fast, it can also be pretty accurately focused on an SLR, with the added benefit of being able to view precisely what is in the frame, and without the need to recompose for wide open portraits.
I like the 50’s for portraiture too – they might be just behind in preferences, after the 55-60mm lenses, that offer a slightly tighter framing with a similar DOF.
For this test, I have also experimented with a new film – as my reserves of APX 100 and Plus X are drying out, I wanted to have a go at RPX 100 – apparently Rollei’s suggested replacement for these other films going out of production.
The lenses were:
- Leica DR Summicron 50/2 on a Leica M4
- Leica Summicron R 50/2 1st version on a Leica R4s2
- Nikon Nikkor 50/2 H.C. on Nikon F2
- Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 on Nikon F3
20136812 by mfogiel, on Flickr
I took a stable tripod, enough film, and set out to visit a garden I always wanted to see in the nearby Menton – La Serre de la Madone – a charming creation of Lawrence Johnston, an American garden lover, and also the creator of the famous Hidcote Manor in the UK.
It is always pleasant to take photographs in a place you see for the first time. There is a new intensity in your perception, which over time withers away. Perhaps it is a result of our evolutionary reaction to a new environment, which needs to be quickly evaluated, to enhance orientation and reassure no dangers are present. It is easier to see the forms and patterns, when you see something fresh.
I was not interested to find the ultimate sharpness or whatever other singular trait of a lens, but rather to verify in the field, how four competent lenses perform in a broad range of settings. The tripod and a relatively sharp film assure, that it will be difficult for me to obtain better technical results in everyday handheld photo taking.
The lenses here, are of similar basic specifications, with the Makro Planar being the exception for its close focus correction, but while the difference in price is quite big ( 30 EUR for Nikkor and 1000 EUR for Makro Planar, with the Summicrons falling in between), how big is the difference in effective output?
Is it reasonable, that we agonize over internet reviews, and seek the holy grail of lens perfection?
Let’s look at the results.
The first picture, has actually been made as last, and will explain a lot of subsequent differences. While a lot of people write a lot of words about which lens is sharper than another, how many of them actually know if their lenses focus as expected?
Given, that after the first frame, the battery in my F3 died, I have used both Nikon mount lenses on the F2, which adds some extra flavour to this test:
FOCUS COMPARISON by mfogiel, on Flickr
As you may know, the single factor, which deteriorates the resolution of a lens in a given plane of focus the most, is... the precision of the focus itself. As you open up your lens, and shorten the subject distance, the acceptable DOF narrows.
In case of 50mm f 2.0 lenses wide open (following the DOF Master calculator), the acceptable dof at 1m is around 4 cm, at 1.3 m is about 8cm and at 1.5 m is about 10cm. I normally avoid getting closer to the subject than 130-150cm, unless I do not fear facial distortion, however, to get the best "sparkle" out of a portrait, or best subject isolation for close up settings, the focus precision is paramount.
What we see on the chart, is, that the DR Summicron on my M4 is spot on, and so is the Makro Planar on the F2 ( note the incredible contrast of this lens wide open), BUT, on the same camera, the Nikkor is front focusing at least 4 cm, and on The R4, the Summicron R is back focusing slightly. It is clear, that this must be accounted for, when you chose your camera/lens combo, otherwise your tools cannot perform as expected. In case of Nikons F2 and F3, luckily a lot of different focusing screens are available, so you should try to match each lens to the body/screen combination.
Let's have a look now at some photographs. I have tried to make the comparison as fair as I could - adjusting slightly the scans to the same size, and brightness matching all the photographs as far as possible.
The post processing has been minimal, with my typical slight curves and contrast adjustments, and no burning or dodging has been applied. Only the portrait photo has been slightly more taken care of, because I did not want to disappoint the charming lady, who agreed to pose for me. If you want to pixel peep or even download and print these photos for the sake of comparison, you are welcome to do so - you will find virtually full size files on my flickr.
Last word, before we start looking at the photographs: I have used Rollei RPX 100 film here, exposed at EI 64, and developed it in rodinal 1+45 for 15 minutes at 20C - agitation every 3 minutes. The result has been very good, there were no problems with extreme contrast, the grain and sharpness are ok, and the nice bonus, is that this film dries completely flat. Everything has been scanned on Nikon CS900 at 4000dpi.
This is a typical "F8 and be there" shot, with lenses set to infinity at f8.0.
50mm f2.0 LENS COMPARISON_1 by mfogiel, on Flickr
I have looked at it at 100% on the screen for some time, and cannot find any major difference in sharpness. Perhaps the best resolution comes from the DR Summicron, but it is a small difference, and could be attributed to the absence of mirror slap. You can already see, that the DR and Nikkor exhibit lower contrast, the Summicron R somewhat higher, and the MP highest of them all, however, the range of tones delivered is superb in all four cases. I would welcome your observations, but my preliminary judgement is, that this is a tie.
Next scene, is a torture test for reflections - a pool of water with blooming algae and a host of pin sharp light hotspots from the sharp mediterranean sun. The focus was set to 1.5m , and aperture to f11.
50mm f2.0 LENS COMPARISON_3 by mfogiel, on Flickr
As you can see in detail, the Nikkor and Summicron R have a little bit of blooming and some ray like effects around the specular highlights. The MP is very well controlled, while the unexpectedly good performer is also the DR Summicron, which notwithstanding the oldest coatings, manages to control the reflections pretty well. Perhaps I would give the MP the lead here, with the Dr coming second, and the other lenses following, but frankly all four photos look perfectly acceptable.
To be continued...
