Eight Lenses Compared

Nikon Bob said:
I noticed that some comment was made on one of the photos that there seemed to be more window area in some of the photos than others. I also noticed the the subject (little girl) was closer to the side of the rocker nearest the windows in some and not others. I can not tell if she is leaning forward more in some also. Her different positiong in the photos may have contributed to the amont of flare or lack of it. Great effort and I am not trying to pick holes. it is just that even in simple tests it is very hard to eliminate all the variables. I will say that I have always liked the performance of my 50 f2 Nikkor ai lens.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob,
I have four photos per lens, but I could not upload them all since I am limited to five images per day. The results are consistent across all four images.
 
laptoprob said:
Raid, I think you have a focus problem here. The Bessa T is more than capable to focus these 50 lenses. Is there something wrong with the lenses? Have you cheched the rangefinder with a really critical lens like a 135mm?
Also a great difference in flare. Sad though, the lens performance is overshadowed this way.

cheers, Rob.
Click to expand...

Rob,
The focus problem wa smy moving daughter. Her one year old sister was cheering her on while she was about to explode with laughter so I asked her to place her arms around herself (as seen in the photos) to keep her stable. My other "model" was my wife, and the photos are sharper there.
 
rover said:
Are the lenses hooded? Probably not, but I just want to be sure.
Click to expand...

Rover: Each lens had a lens hood. Each lens looks clear of internal haze to me, but I will check again with a light.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Nikkor 5cm F2 is 6 elements in 3 groups, and it is coated. I have found mine is resilient to flare. The uncoated Zeiss 5cm F2 is best used with a shade, and not against strong backlight.
Click to expand...

Brian and Bertram: I used a shade with each lens. In fact, most lenses used the same lens hood.
 
That is a long and tedious task that you have completed especially since you replicated it and are to be commended for doing so. I guess all lenses will flare to a greater or lesser degree and that that is not dependant on the lenses newness or cost as the 50 f2 Nikkor seems to be indicating and that is very interesting. It would be interesting to see how the latest 50 asph. Leica lenses would compare in similar circumstances to the 50 f2 Nikkor.

Bob
 
FrankS said:
We must remember too, that the results speak also to the individual lens sample rather than generalized to all lenses of that type. I'm thinking of the high flare on the Summicrons which may be due to internal haze in the samples tested. Once others (including myself) do testing like this on the samples of lenses that they have, we will be better able to tell whether the results are due to the lens type rather than the individual samples. You know what I'm trying to say?
Click to expand...

Frank: I hope that my little test will inspire others here to repeat such a test with their 50mm lenses so I also know more about my lenses and their potential capabilities or lack of it. The rigid Summicron will be checked out by me soon. If I see any internal haze, I will have it professionally cleaned.
 
Thanks again for all your hard work, Raid! If others add their similar test results, we will be able to get a good idea about the attributes of RF lenses.
 
No problem, Frank. I learned also from all the comments on the test. First, I will check each lens for haze. The Zeiss lens was just cleaned by DAG so it should be "fine", but look at its performance.
 
Raid,

Great work. Nikkor first, Canon 1.2 second a whisker ahead of the J3, which surprised me (overall look for me!).

Now in order to satisfy all the guys here can you replicate the tests with a dozen randomly selected versions of every 50 ever made in both LTM and M mount (all to have a recent CLA cert), in black, black paint and chrome and can you glue your daughter to the chair for the duration 🙂) - Only joking guys.

Regards

Gid
 
It would have been nice to have had a Jupiter 8 and Industar-61L/D in the mix too... Though by now I'm sure Raid is ready to let these be for awhile 😉

Thanks for all the work, I appreciate it.

William
 
wlewisiii said:
It would have been nice to have had a Jupiter 8 and Industar-61L/D in the mix too... Though by now I'm sure Raid is ready to let these be for awhile 😉

Thanks for all the work, I appreciate it.

William
Click to expand...

William,
I do not own a Jupiter 8 but have an Industrar 61L/D which I will add to me next test one day.
 
I enjoyed the nikkor and the jupiter shots (have you gotten your jupiter CLAed? and if so, where?). Real life tests are the best. I got some heat for posting scans of neopan 1600 developed in diafine and exposed at different ISOs...

If you do any more tests, make sure to post them on the forum.
 
It's kind of interesting that Raid's lens test echoes the results of Life magazine photographers back in 1950-'51, when photojournalists bound for the Korean War discovered the quality of Nikkor lenses and immediately refitted their Leicas with Nikkors in LTM mount. (Actually, the American photographers saw prints of photos made by their Japanese colleagues and were surprised by the quality of the images).

I haven't had a chance to do any tests yet, but I did start out in rangefinders in 1989-'90 using a 1957 Jupiter 8 f/2, then a Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnar 1.5. I was doing daily newspaper darkroom work back then, and when I got my Nikkor f/1.4, I was immediately struck by its sharpness, contrast and lack of flare compared to the J8 and the Sonnar. The J8 wasn't consistent enough for me to use for newspaper assignments -- it could flare spectacularly under some bright-sun conditions -- and the Sonnar wasn't quite sharp enough (I recently saw a thread saying the Oberkochen Sonnars have a less than sterling reputation for quality). When I got the Nikkor, it was so sharp and contrasty that I had no qualms about using it for daily newspaper work at a time when most photojournalists were switching from the F3 to the F4. In fact, soon after getting the Nikkor, I purposefully shot an entire photo feature assignment with it and had fabulous results. Been using it as a daily shooter ever since.

When I get a chance, I'll try a test of my Nikkor 1.4 alongside the Sonnar and 1957 J8.
 
einolu said:
I enjoyed the nikkor and the jupiter shots (have you gotten your jupiter CLAed? and if so, where?). Real life tests are the best. I got some heat for posting scans of neopan 1600 developed in diafine and exposed at different ISOs...

If you do any more tests, make sure to post them on the forum.
Click to expand...

Brian Sweeney (here on the RFF) sold me this J3 after he adjusted its focusing by adding shimming. Maybe he cleaned it too, but I never asked him. It turned out to be an excellent lens.
 
Vince: There seems to be a lot of criticism of my test, but tat's fine as long as it produces more and better testing results by people. I also was struck by how fine the Nikkor does when I used this lens for the first time. I have the 5cm/2 and hope to get one day a Nikkor 5cm/1.4. Some people here own many Nikkors.
 
There was concern that the different amounts of included window portion will have an impact on the overall conclusions and that the rankings of the lenses is correlated with the amount of window included. I cannot agree with this conclusion. I looked again at the eight images posted on the RFF. The amount of window included in the images is roughly (n increasing order) as follows:

1. Canon 50mm/1.2
2. Zeiss Sonnar
3. Nikkor
4. Rigid Summicron
5. Canon 50/2.8
6. J3
7. Collapsible Summicron
8. Canon 5cm/1.8

Note that even though the Canon 50/1.8 got a "large" window, it still did much better than others with a smaller proportion of window. Or, the Zeiss got the second smallest window but did the worst.
 
It's my understanding that the knock-out quality of Canon and Nikon glass in the 1950s pushed Leitz to decide to make the best possible lenses in the world after the Japanese companies started moving the consumer market to SLRs.

I have some photo literature from the early and mid-1950s. At the time, Leitz wasn't priding itself on having the best lenses in the world. Rather, the company focus was on the flexiblity and usability of the entire Leica camera system ... with an emphasis on a small, very portable camera that could be used in diverse situations where a larger format camera was inappropriate.
 
Raid, I think we are all appreciative of the work you've done testing those lenses. The "criticism" of uneven amounts of window in the frames was more an attempt to explain the surprizing results, rather than a knock on you. We're much kinder here at RFF than at PNet, where undoubtedly you would have been ripped into by some people for whatever stupid reasons. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
569
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
2K
aoresteen
aoresteen
Bololoco
Cameras to fix
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
fub
fub
B
The unloved Panasonic Lumix GF1
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
underlord
underlord
F
The Lens Repair Apocalypse: Repair Shops INUNDATED with work, and will get worse.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
WoodallP
WoodallP
Back
Top Bottom