maitani
Well-known
Kern Apo Macro Switar 50 1.9 AR for Alpa
Better than Summicron?
- Thread starter Tejasican
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 7K
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My 50mm lenses:
Of the SLR lenses, I'd have to say the Summicron-R 50 produces the most pleasing rendering qualities, but this is a very high quality bunch of lenses and not a one of them is what I'd call deficient. The differences between them are what make it non-embarassing to have them all ... ;-)
G
- Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH M mount
- Voigtländer Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 M mount
- Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2
- Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4
- Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI
- Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S
Of the SLR lenses, I'd have to say the Summicron-R 50 produces the most pleasing rendering qualities, but this is a very high quality bunch of lenses and not a one of them is what I'd call deficient. The differences between them are what make it non-embarassing to have them all ... ;-)
G
Major Tom
Established
Assuming we are not restricting to RF lenses...
I add a +1 to the Macro-Switar
I add a +1 to the Macro-Switar
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I've owned M and R Summicrons from 28 to 90mm and they are fine lenses. However, the older I get, the less interested I am in the absolute minutae of detail and perceived benefits such as "bokeh".
I look at my current sets of lenses for my Mamiya 7, Mamiya C330, Nikon SLRs and Hasselblad 500c/m and I can say, in all honesty, that they all give me what I want - assuming I put the right subject matter in front of them.
I suppose what I'm saying is that a good photograph is a good photograph - irrespective of what the lens was and that a crap photograph can't be turned into a good one simply by having nice colour rendition and smooth bokeh.
All of that said, I have a 120mm Makro Planar for my 'Blad that takes some beating and I also have a Nikon 105mm f2 DC that is about the best portrait lens I've ever used.
I look at my current sets of lenses for my Mamiya 7, Mamiya C330, Nikon SLRs and Hasselblad 500c/m and I can say, in all honesty, that they all give me what I want - assuming I put the right subject matter in front of them.
I suppose what I'm saying is that a good photograph is a good photograph - irrespective of what the lens was and that a crap photograph can't be turned into a good one simply by having nice colour rendition and smooth bokeh.
All of that said, I have a 120mm Makro Planar for my 'Blad that takes some beating and I also have a Nikon 105mm f2 DC that is about the best portrait lens I've ever used.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
helenhill--Love the third image in your post. Fantastic shot!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Assuming we are not restricting to RF lenses...
I add a +1 to the Macro-Switar
Such a lovely piece of equipment! The Alpa 10d is one of those "beautiful cameras I always wanted but never owned."
A beauty.
G
mfogiel
Veteran
I have recently made a test for myself - will post this here once I have finished all the scans. I have compared in rendering:
Summicron R 50/2 v1
Nikkor HC 50/2
Makro Planar 50/2 ZF
DR Summicron 50/2
I wasn't primarily looking for a sharpness contest, rather a general all round rendering, including portraits. Given, that I am not in the field of dermatology, Makro Planar has been excluded from the portrait test.
The overall verdict is: all these lenses are great.
- Makro Planar is the sharpest in the close to normal range, but not at infinity.
- At infinity, it is difficult to tell these lenses apart, but DR Summicron in the center trumps them all.
- Flare resistance is best with the MP.
- Bokeh, in terms of aspect and roundness at various apertures - Makro Planar wins again, with DR coming second, for its rounder aperture blades.
If we start speaking about bokeh character, then both Summicrons are great.
- Handling, ease of focusing and framing - Summicron R was best - the MP is huge, heavy and takes time to focus, the Nikkor has a slightly less solid and smooth action, and DR cannot compete in framing or ease of focusing off center.
In terms of overall rendition, the weakest lens is the Nikkor, but we are talking about legends here. On balance, the weakest aspect of the Summicron R was the camera it was attached to...
Summicron R 50/2 v1
Nikkor HC 50/2
Makro Planar 50/2 ZF
DR Summicron 50/2
I wasn't primarily looking for a sharpness contest, rather a general all round rendering, including portraits. Given, that I am not in the field of dermatology, Makro Planar has been excluded from the portrait test.
The overall verdict is: all these lenses are great.
- Makro Planar is the sharpest in the close to normal range, but not at infinity.
- At infinity, it is difficult to tell these lenses apart, but DR Summicron in the center trumps them all.
- Flare resistance is best with the MP.
- Bokeh, in terms of aspect and roundness at various apertures - Makro Planar wins again, with DR coming second, for its rounder aperture blades.
If we start speaking about bokeh character, then both Summicrons are great.
- Handling, ease of focusing and framing - Summicron R was best - the MP is huge, heavy and takes time to focus, the Nikkor has a slightly less solid and smooth action, and DR cannot compete in framing or ease of focusing off center.
In terms of overall rendition, the weakest lens is the Nikkor, but we are talking about legends here. On balance, the weakest aspect of the Summicron R was the camera it was attached to...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
By "takes some beating," do you mean it gets used a lot, or you throw it around, or you don't like it? If you use it a lot, what do you like about it?
Rune
Member
It may be considered bad manner to link to posts on other forums, but I hope you bear over with me (especially as it was I who wrote the original post on the other forum 😱)
It is a simple survey of 15 lenses, including some of those mentioned in this thread. Please observe that the "test" was done on a Sony Nex, so results may be different when used on other sensors (or film). Also, the idea was to test the lenses in a worst case scenario, so the results are neither conclusive nor representative.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/232618-simple-lens-survey-15-lenses.html
It is a simple survey of 15 lenses, including some of those mentioned in this thread. Please observe that the "test" was done on a Sony Nex, so results may be different when used on other sensors (or film). Also, the idea was to test the lenses in a worst case scenario, so the results are neither conclusive nor representative.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/232618-simple-lens-survey-15-lenses.html
redisburning
Well-known
I am not surprised that the highest peak terminal resolution is the DR. If your testing methodology is really, really superb, you should get the highest extinction at f2.
personally I found the DR to have lower contrast at relevant values than good modern lenses and as such I sold mine. here, and in field flatness and in retaining contrast as you approach MFD I doubt any lens offers as good of a combination of optical properties as the 50Makro-Planar.
fwiw I personally prefer the E55/v2 Summicron-R to the v1 but that's me.
Tejasican
Well-known
Thanks, Rune.
I've tried testing some lenses on my NEX5 with mixed results.
I tested the Nikon AIS 50mm 1.4, Nikon 50mmE, Summicron-R 50mm v1, Zuiko 50mm 1.8, Zuiko 50mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8 FD, Canon 50mm 1,4 SSC. Depending on the subject, lighting, and my eyes that day the results, as I said, have been varied. The leapfrogging of performance indicates that there most likely are some rather serious problems with my methodology. I need to shore that up.
Focusing on the screen has gotten nigh impossible for me so I mainly am shooting film at the moment.
I've tried testing some lenses on my NEX5 with mixed results.
I tested the Nikon AIS 50mm 1.4, Nikon 50mmE, Summicron-R 50mm v1, Zuiko 50mm 1.8, Zuiko 50mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8 FD, Canon 50mm 1,4 SSC. Depending on the subject, lighting, and my eyes that day the results, as I said, have been varied. The leapfrogging of performance indicates that there most likely are some rather serious problems with my methodology. I need to shore that up.
Focusing on the screen has gotten nigh impossible for me so I mainly am shooting film at the moment.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
If we're going to look at 2/50 lenses specifically my favorites are the Yashinon 2/50 and the CZJ Pancolar 2/50 - both of which I think meet or exceed the Summicron R 50mm on the criteria listed.
You can see some close up work I've done with the Yashinon here: http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136151
In terms of color rendition and smooth transitions into OOF areas the Yashinon 2/50 is excellent (beware they came with several different coatings over their production life, so I don't know if all render color quite the same). As well the Yashinon shows excellent corner performance for an SLR lens of this era even when shot wide open.
The Pancolar 2/50 gives about as smooth OOF areas as one could hope for at any aperture other than the max, but even at f2 the effect is pleasant.
I think this photo demonstrates how subtly the lens renders a transition from in focus to out of focus:
vx5008 by berangberang, on Flickr
moss by berangberang, on Flickr
A nice thing about this lens is the foreground OOF rendering matches that of the background.
You can see some close up work I've done with the Yashinon here: http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136151
In terms of color rendition and smooth transitions into OOF areas the Yashinon 2/50 is excellent (beware they came with several different coatings over their production life, so I don't know if all render color quite the same). As well the Yashinon shows excellent corner performance for an SLR lens of this era even when shot wide open.
The Pancolar 2/50 gives about as smooth OOF areas as one could hope for at any aperture other than the max, but even at f2 the effect is pleasant.
I think this photo demonstrates how subtly the lens renders a transition from in focus to out of focus:
vx5008 by berangberang, on Flickr
moss by berangberang, on Flickr
A nice thing about this lens is the foreground OOF rendering matches that of the background.
ferider
Veteran
OP, I'm confused. There are so many 50mm lenses and different flavors that people will just keep throwing their favorite lens at you, any format, any camera, etc.
You mention NEX and SLR (not sure which), OOF field rendering and color rendition. What else in lens characteristics are you looking for ?
1) registration distance ? The R Summicron I and II are very different at least from some M-mount Summicron versions mentioned above. What cameras do you want to use the lens on ?
2) resolution ? Do you shoot on tripod, mirror locked up, or only hand-held ? Do you care about "highest resolution" vs. "great but not outstanding" ?
3) format ? full-frame film and NEX crop factor ? Either/or or both ?
4) distortion ? Do you shoot slides or wet prints ? Do you mind correcting barrel distortion digitally ?
5) speed ? Is f2 enough ? Would you like a brighter viewfinder on your film SLR ?
6) close focus vs. infinity ? Which do you care more about ?
7) and finally, what's your budget ? Summicron R value ? 3 times more OK ? Etc.
For example: if you want the best lens for your NEX, best front and back OOF, natural color rending, etc., you might want to check the ZM Sonnar, a modern Ernostar (no Sonnar/Ernostar lenses in your list). Also on the NEX, focus shift doesn't matter. Then again, there is no SLR Sonnar on the market.
Or, if you want rectilinear, full frame, high edge to edge performance on your SLR, with natural color rendition, I'd pick a multicoated Planar or Ultron variant. For example, the Nikkor 50/1.8E is single coated. Older copies are multi-coated.
Etc.
Roland.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Not that I run across that again: Do you have an authoritative source for that, other than the absence of any coating specification in the Nikon E product literature? While it looks different than earlier Nikkor coatings, its coating is the spitting image of the coating on the later AF f/1.8 50mm - which is positively advertised to be multicoated.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Given this is the SLR forum I would assume they are comparing lenses to the R Summicron, rather than to the rangefinder versions. They also stated in the first post what qualities they place the highest value on. If we wanted to talk about things like resolving power it'd be a completely different topic.
ferider
Veteran
authoritative yes, but maybe incorrect for all lens copies 🙂 (Ken Rockwell on his web-site and Roland Vink on photo.net http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Fyur). When I picked my lens it seemed like there are at least many single coated 50/1.8E copies out there.
BTW, when I picked my 50/1.8 (now one of my favorite 50s), from the list below (by http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index6.htm), I chose the third, because of min. focus and to be sure about multi-coating:
1) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai 50/1.8 straight nose 3+ 1760801 < 1762193 - 2164865 > Jan78 - Oct82 6/5
2) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S (original) 50/1.8 stepped nose, narrow ap. ring 3+ 3135001 < 3135429 - 3304086 > Jul81 - Sep85
3) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S MkII 50/1.8 S rubber focus, focus to 0.45m 3+ < 2050972 - 2266119 > 1980 - ?
4) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S MK III 50/1.8 New plastic focus, focus to 0.6m 3+ 4000001 < 4000010 - 4455975 > Aug85 - Dec05
Like everybody else, let me share a low resolution jpeg file to show how great that lens is 🙄
(It really is great in print though)
Bottom line for the OP, is that even if you test the Nikkor 50/1.8 only, there are many subtle variations which might make it better or worse than your Summicron for your purposes.
I thought so, too, but more than half of the other posts in this thread talk about either RF lenses or resolving power. Which is where my confusion comes from.
Roland.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
f16sunshine
Moderator
ferider
Veteran
Oh you want more 50mm photos ? Here you go (from my current 50mm project):
Another one with the Nikkor 50/1.8:
Zuiko 50/1.8:
Zuiko 50/1.4:
M-Nokton 50/1.5:
Nikkor-S 55/1.2:
M-Summilux 50/1.4 v2:
Nokton 40/1.4 (that I count as a 50, too)
Roland.
Sparrow
Veteran
authoritative yes, but maybe incorrect for all lens copies 🙂 (Ken Rockwell on his web-site and Roland Vink on photo.net http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Fyur). When I picked my lens it seemed like there are at least many single coated 50/1.8E copies out there.
BTW, when I picked my 50/1.8 (now one of my favorite 50s), from the list below (by http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index6.htm), I chose the third, because of min. focus and to be sure about multi-coating:
1) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai 50/1.8 straight nose 3+ 1760801 < 1762193 - 2164865 > Jan78 - Oct82 6/5
2) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S (original) 50/1.8 stepped nose, narrow ap. ring 3+ 3135001 < 3135429 - 3304086 > Jul81 - Sep85
3) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S MkII 50/1.8 S rubber focus, focus to 0.45m 3+ < 2050972 - 2266119 > 1980 - ?
4) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S MK III 50/1.8 New plastic focus, focus to 0.6m 3+ 4000001 < 4000010 - 4455975 > Aug85 - Dec05
Like everybody else, let me share a low resolution jpeg file to show how great that lens is 🙄
(It really is great in print though)
Bottom line for the OP, is that even if you test the Nikkor 50/1.8 only, there are many subtle variations which might make it better or worse than your Summicron for your purposes.
I thought so, too, but more than half of the other posts in this thread talk about either RF lenses or resolving power. Which is where my confusion comes from.
Roland.
.. a difficult photo to judge lens performance by though ... I agree that f1.8 and the preceding f2 nikkors are unsung heros, I also agree with Helen, there really aren't any bad 50mm lenses made between 1970 and 2000
Similar threads
