Agonizing about lenses: 4 friends in their 50’s…

[redisburning]

Boris are you at least going to thank Marek for the test or is your contribution to this thread really going to be 3 lines of code for "this is a ****post"?

 

[Boris Stupak]

I think there are so many huge variables that cannot be controlled with this "test" that the test is basically meaningless.

From sample variation, to lens centering, to focus calibration of each camera, to about a thousand other factors, you can't say that this test proves anything.

You can only tell how good a lens is by putting one on your own camera, shooting with it, and judging your own results.

If it makes you happy to conduct these "tests", more power to you.

(I will say I think the whole idea of "bokeh" is almost ridiculous and I don't care about it)

 

[Brian Legge]

Sure - mfogiel made a test of mfogiels lenses. The fact that it was shared here is interesting but doesn't reflect every lens of that make ever. It is a data point, not something that should be considered definitive.

'Bokeh' is just a label for a bunch of specific distortions which happen to manifest in the look of the out of focus areas. There is a big difference between the look of the out of focus parts of the image between a Summitar and a Summicron Asph for example. It won't matter at all to f8 shooters but may to those shooting around f4 or wider.

 

[sanmich]

Thanks for the test. Very interesting.
About the focus issue of the Nikon: If I understand correctly, if there is a focus problem at mid ranges, it cannot be the lens fault, but the camera has a screen placed at the wrong distance compared to the film. A lens can have troubles reaching infinity, but basically, with an SLR, what you see is what you get (put aside focus shift).

 

[yossarian123]

What's interesting for me is price since the differences in image quality are pretty minor. I paid $10 for my nikkor 50/2. I actually have 2 of them since the 2nd only cost $20!

 

[mfogiel]

@sanmich
With the SLR what you see is NOT what you get, unless you are lucky. The combination of lens fl, aperture AND optical scheme ( angle at which the rays hit the screen) PLUS the type of screen surface ( microprisms, ground glass, Fresnel, transparent glass, etc) make for the final sharpness perception as much as correct distance of the mirror and focusing screen from the lens flange. This becomes very obvious with longer lenses, but you can notice it even with a medium speed 50mm, particularly at closer distances.
If you are not fond of shooting measurement tables, just put your camera on a tripod, and make some portraits of somebody sitting still at a distance of 1m, to see if the eyes are sharp.

 

[leicapixie]

A hardy task.
I truly see no differences or so little as to be, ignored.
Focusing a SLR,Nikon F2,
is not that easy, esp. with that screen.

A Nikkor 50mm f2.0 costs less than a filter for a Leica lens..
Personally my Nikon leaves my Summicron way behind.
Stronger glass, almost no flare, lens hood not required, due to construction,
well recessed.Better contrast also.
The "R" lenses were said to be better at time, than "M"...
The Zeiss a monster size.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Is there a difference between the Nikkor HC used in the tests and the H (sans C)?

Thanks

 

[Jerevan]

I am a bit confused too - isn't the Nikkor-H single-coated versus the H.C. being multicoated?

 

[Roninman]

Thank you, I've always enjoyed your photography and your enthusiasm. This exposé was very well done and your conclusions, I thought, very valuable.

Best,

John

 

[ferider]

Great comparison, Marek.

Also good to see that you have measured SLR focusing accuracy. Ignored by many and just as important (and prone to failure) as, say, Leica RF calibration.

Roland.

 

[Roninman]

I am a bit confused too - isn't the Nikkor-H single-coated versus the H.C. being multicoated?

I may be incorrect, but I thought that nikon coated all the H and HC lenses but dropped the "c" in that all lenses were coated at the time.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I think you may be right Roninman.......is the lens spec design a Plannar (double guase sp?) design?

 

[ferider]

I may be incorrect, but I thought that nikon coated all the H and HC lenses but dropped the "c" in that all lenses were coated at the time.

That's only true for the LTM and Nikon RF 50/2 Sonnars, R.: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/34

For the F-mount lens used by Marek the H.C. (1972-74) was a multi-coated version Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 (1964-72). http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/2/.

A clean Planar:

Roland.

 

[redisburning]

I think you may be right Roninman.......is the lens spec design a Plannar (double guase sp?) design?

yes, the Nikkor is a traditional 6/4 (elements/groups)
The Summicron R v1 is 6/5
The Summicron DR is 7/6
And the 50MP is 8/6

the most complicated design I know of for a 50/2 is the Zuiko 50/2 which is 9/7, and the new APO Summicron is 8/5. The MP, Zuiko and APO Cron have a floating lens group. The others do not.

the only non-planar ~50mm lenses I know of is the Takumar 58/2, everything else is either a derivative or a telecentric modification. I cannot confirm this information though, I dont know every ~50 that's ever been made. Even the Xenotar derivatives are just going off Schneider's take on the planar design.

ps I just wanted to say that I wish MTF graphs had some sort of standard that makers had to adhere. Frankly, Zeiss' would be fine, Leicas a little less so but still.

anyway, this is the MTF graph for the 50mm Makro Planar at infinity at f5.6:

it's currently the only 50 in the world in the same conversation as the 50APO (new Zeiss 55 distagon isnt out yet, of course) and as we can see on APX100 you're going to struggle to see it do much better than a $50 Nikkor. It would be mighty interesting to see this test done with micro or technical film. If Canon ever bothers to push out a high MP body I may rent one to test out some lenses.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Thanks, Red and Roland!