Comparison - 50mm Summar, Canon f1.2 ltm, Voigt f1.5 v2

[brusby]

I normally do testing before I use a lens for any important shoot and/or after a cleaning or adjustment so I'll have an idea what to expect. Since portraits are a big part of what I'll be using a lens for, the model head gives me a good approximation. Kinda boring, I'll admit, but posted here for the very few who might be interested.

One exposure with each lens, all shot wide open, hand held in natural window light. Pretty drastic changes in color rendition. I suspect it's primarily a result of coatings, but I can't rule out changes in the outside light over the course of this test, e.g., the sun going behind clouds could easily account for a big shift in the warmth of the images.

summar 000 by Brusby, on Flickr

canon 000 by Brusby, on Flickr

voigt 000 by Brusby, on Flickr


I'll follow up with 100%, 200% and 300% crops

 

[brusby]

100% crops

summar 100 by Brusby, on Flickr

canon 100 by Brusby, on Flickr

voigt 100 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

200%

summar 200 by Brusby, on Flickr

canon 200 by Brusby, on Flickr

voigt 200 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

300%

summar 300 by Brusby, on Flickr

canon 300 by Brusby, on Flickr

voigt 300 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[astrosecret]

the canon is impressive. i'm not surprised as my1.4 is a great lens albeit slightly prone to flare/low contrast due to single coating of the era. although, as expected, it's softer at 1.2 than the other apertures here, it holds up well for its age and price

 

[raid]

Thanks for these comparisons. This is very useful.

The Canon 50 1.2 can be very sharp if your lens happens to have been adjusted and improved (if it needed any improvements). My lens was repaired and made better by DAG.The image below is sharp. I took it hand held.

 

[brusby]

Yep, I agree. The Canon seems very nice wide open and right in the ballpark for making pleasing portraits, particularly if going for just a bit of dreaminess.

Frankly I was very surprised at how similar all three are. I would have predicted the uncoated Summar to show quite a bit more haziness and/or loss of contrast from internal reflections than the other two but that doesn't seem to be true, at least in this case. It was completely fogged when I got it but cleaned up pretty well.

 

[brusby]

Thanks for these comparisons. This is very useful.

The Canon 50 1.2 can be very sharp if your lens happens to have been adjusted and improved (if it needed any improvements). My lens was made repaired and made better by DAG.The image below is sharp. I took it hand held.

Looks like you got a good copy Raid. Nice portrait. I've heard quite a few people report that the f1.2 is not sharp wide open. But I don't think that's true. I'd guess they got a copy that is not adjusted properly for rangefinder focusing or perhaps just missed focus. Mine is stock. I just checked rangefinder calibration and made sure glass was clean.

 

[raid]

The lens was messed up as it gave a focus line across the diagonal of each image. The focused parts were not at one line that ran horizontal across the images. Several (known) camera repairmen could not repair the lens, but Don found out that some lens elements had shifted. He adjusted them, and the Canon 50/1.2 became a very sharp lens.

 

[raid]

Yep, I agree. The Canon seems very nice wide open and right in the ballpark for making pleasing portraits, particularly if going for just a bit of dreaminess.

Frankly I was very surprised at how similar all three are. I would have predicted the uncoated Summar to show quite a bit more haziness and/or loss of contrast from internal reflections than the other two but that doesn't seem to be true, at least in this case. It was completely fogged when I got it but cleaned up pretty well.

The Summar flares when there is direct light. Your set-up did not have direct light sources.

This image is cropped from the right from where the sun was shining into the widow of a library where I tried out my Summar for the first time with film in 2007.

 

[dexdog]

The summar in this thread preforms really well. I assume that it is a very clean example where the front element does not have the scratches common to these lenses.

 

[brusby]

The summar in this thread preforms really well. I assume that it is a very clean example where the front element does not have the scratches common to these lenses.

I don't see any scratches at all on the glass. The Summar was given to me years ago by a good friend who suggested it be used only to make moody, dreamy images because it was so badly fogged internally. That may have been what saved it. I guess the fogging prevented previous owners from using it much. It probably sat in a box or drawer for most of its life. It was pretty easy to clean but putting the funky aperture blades back in was a real eye opening experience.

 

[Coldkennels]

It's good to see the Summar coming out strong. I've got one in good shape too, and it consistently under-promises and over-delivers. It's such a good little lens that it basically replaced my Summicron as my main 50mm when I got it about a decade ago.



This is an old scan from a flatbed. I really need to dig the negatives out and put it through the Plustek, because that Canoscan never did it justice. The darkroom prints were stunning.

 

[brusby]

It's good to see the Summar coming out strong. I've got one in good shape too, and it consistently under-promises and over-delivers. It's such a good little lens that it basically replaced my Summicron as my main 50mm when I got it about a decade ago.

Ooooh, lovely tones and beautiful portrait, not to mention a great quizzical look. Love the super light weight and small size of the Summar.

 

[raid]

It's good to see the Summar coming out strong. I've got one in good shape too, and it consistently under-promises and over-delivers. It's such a good little lens that it basically replaced my Summicron as my main 50mm when I got it about a decade ago.

filedata/fetch?id=4785615&d=1652968907

This is an old scan from a flatbed. I really need to dig the negatives out and put it through the Plustek, because that Canoscan never did it justice. The darkroom prints were stunning.

This is a beautiful portrait! Thanks for posting it here.

 

[Ambro51]

Well the Summar was an extraordinarily high priced lens when introduced. A true miracle lens.. the 42mm Mikro Summar is also an incredible lens.

 

[raid]

Well the Summar was an extraordinarily high priced lens when introduced. A true miracle lens.. the 42mm Mikro Summar is also an incredible lens.

Can you talk about the Mikro lens?

 

[raydm6]

I normally do testing before I use a lens for any important shoot and/or after a cleaning or adjustment so I'll have an idea what to expect. Since portraits are a big part of what I'll be using a lens for, the model head gives me a good approximation. Kinda boring, I'll admit, but posted here for the very few who might be interested.

Brusby, love your photography. Your portraits are beautiful and beautifully lit.

Love this one: Vivian's Family series. Well done!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brusby/albums/72177720297949558

 

[raydm6]

Well the Summar was an extraordinarily high priced lens when introduced. A true miracle lens.. the 42mm Mikro Summar is also an incredible lens.

Interesting. Never heard of it. Was it a microscope or enlarging lens?

If this is the same lens, it went for $97 on Etsy recently. https://www.etsy.com/listing/1101577549/ernst-leitz-wetzlar-mikro-summar-42mm?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details

 

[raydm6]

Interesting tidbit: (ref: https://kosmofoto.com/2021/09/this-f...en-on-a-leica/)

The lenses used for cine cameras couldn’t cover all of the frame in Barnack’s new camera, so a new one had to be constructed, sharp enough that the pictures would still be crisp and clear when enlarged. The Triplet-style, three-element Mikro-Summar 42mm f/4.5 lens Barnack built for the Ur-Leica was the inspiration for the first generation of Elmar lenses.