Canon LTM Canon 50mm 1.8 ltm vs Leica Collapsible Summicron

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
cavcha1

cavcha1

Member
Local time
3:04 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
41
Hiya,

Did some very unscientific comparisons today of these two lenses which I own.

ONE disclaimer. On the outdoor grave shot I forgot to remove my little lens hood on my leica. Sorry. I dont have a hood fro my canon.

However the still life shots are all without hood.

Seems to me like my Canon back-focusses. This is a sonnar thing isn't it? Back-focssuing? I've read that before I'm sure.

Anyway....I know what I think about the results. How about you guys?


By the way, I have done ZERO editing to these scans. No curves, no sharpening. Just straight off the scanner from Foma 200 negs in Rodinal.

Might be best to click on images and zoom in on Flickr. Not sure.

Canon 5.6
F5.6 Cannon by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Leica 5.6
F5.6 Leica by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Canon f4
SL Canon f4 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Leica f4
SL Leica f4 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Canon f2
SL Canon f2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Leica f2
SL Leica f2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
 
An internet find today was the "equipment list" of one of the founding magnum photographers from circa '53, and I was surprised how much of it was Canon cameras an lenses, including the Serener version of the 50/1.8. Zeiss and Nikkor optics too, and equally surprising was no, none, zero Leica lenses, although an IIIf was listed, the sole Leica representative.

Nice test shots. I particularly like the still life.
 
steveyork said:
An internet find today was the "equipment list" of one of the founding magnum photographers from circa '53, and I was surprised how much of it was Canon cameras an lenses, including the Serener version of the 50/1.8. Zeiss and Nikkor optics too, and equally surprising was no, none, zero Leica lenses, although an IIIf was listed, the sole Leica representative.
Click to expand...

Used my iiif for this today :)
 
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is not a Sonnar design, its a standard Double Gauss design. If it is backfocusing, it needs adjustment.

I have the older Chrome version of the Canon 50mm f1.8 and have compared it to the modern 50mm f2.4 Summarit-M that I have. The old Canon (mine focuses perfectly) is VERY close in sharpness to the new Leica lens. The Summarit-M is SLIGHTLY sharper, and you have to look very close to see the difference.

I have not compared the Canon to the Collapsible Summicron, since I don't have one of them to test. That said, the Canon, if it is adjusted for proper focus, gives quality nearly indistinguishable from modern lenses.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is not a Sonnar design, its a standard Double Gauss design. If it is backfocusing, it needs adjustment.

I have the older Chrome version of the Canon 50mm f1.8 and have compared it to the modern 50mm f2.4 Summarit-M that I have. The old Canon (mine focuses perfectly) is VERY close in sharpness to the new Leica lens. The Summarit-M is SLIGHTLY sharper, and you have to look very close to see the difference.

I have not compared the Canon to the Collapsible Summicron, since I don't have one of them to test. That said, the Canon, if it is adjusted for proper focus, gives quality nearly indistinguishable from modern lenses.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a great lens. However the real thing I notice in my comparison here is just look at the newsprint in the still lifes (zooming in). In the Summicron shots you can read parts of the small print nearly (which I find astonishing). The Canon lens smudges the print. Not a deal-breaker at all. I also noticed how much better the Sumi renders the fork in the still life.

But hey, it's all splitting hairs here. I won't be selling either lens!
 
cavcha1 said:
It's definitely a great lens. However the real thing I notice in my comparison here is just look at the newsprint in the still lifes (zooming in). In the Summicron shots you can read parts of the small print nearly (which I find astonishing). The Canon lens smudges the print. Not a deal-breaker at all. I also noticed how much better the Sumi renders the fork in the still life.

But hey, it's all splitting hairs here. I won't be selling either lens!
Click to expand...

I'd get the lens serviced before judging its qualities. An out of focus image will look smudged!
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'd get the lens serviced before judging its qualities. An out of focus image will look smudged!
Click to expand...

Will do. But even at F2 the out of focus areas of newsprint are legible with the Sumi. At F4 despite much of the image being sharp with the canon, the print is lost really.

Anyway I am absolutely sending my Canon off for a good service :)
 
I don't mean this in an unkind way, and I'd be happy to delete my post if you'd like. But, I'm not seeing anything sharp and clearly in focus in any of the inside photos. Honestly, just wondering what's causing it -- camera shake? forum algorithm? scanning gear?

I have the Leica 50mm collapsible Summicron and it should be very sharp even at f2 and even more so closed down two stops to f4. I've done similar shots checking focus on mine when I first got it, and even wide open it was possible to read the small newsprint in the plane of focus. But in all fairness, my tests were done with a digital camera and there was probably a little sharpening added into the mix. So, maybe that's the difference.

Were these shot on a tripod? Let me know if you'd like me to delete this post. Didn't want to spoil your thread. Just honestly perplexed and looking for an explanation.
 
brusby said:
I don't mean this in an unkind way, and I'd be happy to delete my post if you'd like. But, I'm not seeing anything sharp and clearly in focus in any of the inside photos. Honestly, just wondering what's causing it -- camera shake? forum algorithm? scanning gear?

I have the Leica 50mm collapsible Summicron and it should be very sharp even at f2 and even more so closed down two stops to f4. I've done similar shots checking focus on mine when I first got it, and even wide open it was possible to read the small newsprint in the plane of focus. But in all fairness, my tests were done with a digital camera and there was probably a little sharpening added into the mix. So, maybe that's the difference.

Were these shot on a tripod? Let me know if you'd like me to delete this post. Didn't want to spoil your thread. Just honestly perplexed and looking for an explanation.
Click to expand...

Hey, not at all. There is something a little fishy going on with how the shots look on this forum vs directly on flickr. I think it's because I chose to embed 'large' versions and not 'original'. Try clicking on one and follow through. In all shots I focussed on the apple closest to the stack of books. However one more thing to note is that Foma 200 is NOT a sharp film at all compared to Tri-x or HP5. I love the grain of it and the way it looks so I use it, but it probably wasn't the best for an experiment.

Here is another shot recently taken with the collapsible. On Foma 200 too. I will post this here as the 'oroginal' size.

Closed Restaurant Bottles Leaves Still Life by Charles Cave, on Flickr
 
When I look at the original Flickr images and enlarge them a bit, I can see that the Leica is sharper than your Canon. But I still get the feeling something is not right. Almost all Summicons are very sharp, particularly at f4. Should be sharp enough to easily read the newsprint in the plane of focus. I'm just wondering if another factor was at play, like very minor camera shake. Where these shot on a tripod? It would be the best way to eliminate that as a factor.
 
brusby said:
When I look at the original Flickr images and enlarge them a bit, I can see that the Leica is sharper than your Canon. But I still get the feeling something is not right. Almost all Summicons are very sharp, particularly at f4. Should be sharp enough to easily read the newsprint in the plane of focus. I'm just wondering if another factor was at play, like very minor camera shake. Where these shot on a tripod? It would be the best way to eliminate that as a factor.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Must be some camera shake, as I don't own a tripod! It's odd though. I'll put another roll of film through tomorrow....see what's what!
 
Just did a test here of the 50mm Summicron at both f2 and f4 at minimum focusing distance (a weak point in Summicron resolution I believe) without sharpening or any other manipulation. Camera was Canon R on a tripod.

I'll post links to both photos below. But I think part of the explanation is that I've just grown accustomed to seeing digitally sharpened images and was expecting to see more resolution in your analog images.

In my tests I focused on line 10 of the CD case. At f2 the text is legible, but it's not as clear as I would have expected. At f4 more is in focus and you can also see a bit of focus shift rearward. But, it's also not as clear as expected.

With digital sharpening things get quite a bit clearer and I think that's what I was missing.

So, maybe false alarm, sorry. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

p.s., You do have to click on the image to view it on the original site or resolution is diminished. That seems to have been another contributing factor to the impression of unsharpness.

50mm collapsible Summicron f2


f4
 
I think this is probably a digital Vs soft b/w emulsion thing. But I will do another roll of film tomorrow to be sure. Here is another shot from today of the Summi at 2.8. I'll paste the link so you can view full size. I was focussed on the foot of the statue at minimum distance, hence why the praying hands are soft.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185561092@N03/50256214363/in/dateposted-public/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom