Eight Lenses Compared

raid amin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Raid, the limit is for gallery posts. If you post them in your thread, as Regit originally did, or as Joe did with the '35x4' thread, you will not be so limited.
 
FrankS said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

Frank S

You are right on the mark about trying to explain the results and comments (criticisms) were not meant in a flaming sense. Go Nikkor.

Bob
 
I am not upset at all, and I am already doubting my rigid Summicron regarding internal haze and will take it in a few minutes to my local camera repairman for cleaning. Such tests can only help and not offend anyone.
 
ray_g said:
Raid, the limit is for gallery posts. If you post them in your thread, as Regit originally did, or as Joe did with the '35x4' thread, you will not be so limited.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea, Ray. I may do this once I have time for it. Then you can see all 32 images.
 
Raid: Thanks very much for the time and effort to do these tests. One easy way to check a lens for internal haze is to shine a pocket flashlight (the small kind that takes AA batteries) through the lens at various angles, looking through the other end. This will show up haze that doesn't reveal itself with other methods.

I used to own a 35/3.5 Summaron that was not as good as I thought it should be. Only when I used the flashlight method did I see a ring of haze inside. I got it cleaned, and the difference was astonishing. I only sold it because I got a 50/2 Summicron a few years later.

Here's an "after cleaning" picture with the Summaron. You can see a little flare because of the bright Arizona sunshine just outside the frame. It would have smeared the whole frame before the cleaning:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/poodleshades.htm

I just bought a 50/1.8 Serenar on "The Auction Site," and it was quite hazy, so I sent it to DAG before I even bothered shooting with it. Just got it back--results soon, as I've had ill elderly parents and not much time to shoot lately.

--Peter
 
Last edited:
I could test ten 5cm F1.4 Nikkors. I've shot with 9 of them: have not used the 1950 one yet. They all pretty much perform the same, from early chrome to a late one on an S4. Not a bad one in the bunch.

Now J-3's, that is a different story. I've tested 7 so far. It's like a nice Gaussian, and that's after shimming them to agree with the RF...
 
Now let's see if Frank's theory about the RFF (center of the universe) is correct -- do you think the Nikkor LTM 50/2 prices on ebay will go up? 😉
 
Well, if the 5cm F2 prices go up, I'm glad I have mine. And it's Collapsible....

FrankS' is on the way, and I'm holding a front module in reserve for him.

The J-3 that Raid has was my first. It was a basket case with fingerprints on the internal elements when it arrived, and the focus was off by more than 1' at 4'. I took it apart and re-assembled it two times to get it right. I added a 0.7mm shim to it; it came with a 0.4mm shim. Every time you adjust it, you have to reset the focus collar and aperture to get them to line up correctly. That means taking out set screws and drilling new holes for them. I cleaned out the old grease. I was surprised to see how well it performed, and shot about 3 rolls with it using two cameras. I have since learned from Walker that it was made by the Military branch of one of the companies (eyeball logo), was a step ahead in quality, but must have had a hard life. It has cleaning marks on the front element and second element.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21791&cat=500&ppuser=205

The Ebay seller described the glass as "Clean". Russian Roulette.
 
I saw some haze in the rigid Summicron, and I took the lens today to my local camera repairman for cleaning. He does a great job, and I did not see the need to send the lens out elsewhere. The haze explains the poor performance of this lens in my test.
 
Haze is a real issue, it amazes me how many cleaning marks are on a lens without inducing too much of an affect. I have Summarits bought with internal haze that were awful; clean the haze out of them they are great. Cleaning marks were not the issue with them. It's hard to accept that as they look nasty. Bottom line, cleaning marks are in the coating which is there to increase transmission and reduce reflections. Haze is just plain nasty.
 
Brian: the J3 lens from you turned out sharp and contarsty, even though it was in a bad shape before you corrected things.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Haze is a real issue, it amazes me how many cleaning marks are on a lens without inducing too much of an affect. I have Summarits bought with internal haze that were awful; clean the haze out of them they are great. Cleaning marks were not the issue with them. It's hard to accept that as they look nasty. Bottom line, cleaning marks are in the coating which is there to increase transmission and reduce reflections. Haze is just plain nasty.
Click to expand...

You're almost right. Or rather, you're right, but not quite for the reason you may think.

Scratches may be in the coating or into the glass itself. They tend to affect less than haze or fungus because they block less surface area. I used to think that the idea of filling a scratch on a lens with black paint was a terrible idea - until I gave it some thought. The problem is not what the scratch blocks - it blocks nearly nothing, or put another way, it hardly affects the lens' surface area. The problem with scratches is that the v-shaped trough (like the groove of a record, for those who remember records) refracts the light it gathers into the places we don't want it to go. Fill the scratch with something that absorbs light (black paint) and the problem is ended. Yes, you lose the surface area that the scratch represents, but that's insignificant unless there are a huge number of scratches. And haze or significant fungus or dirt not only blocks light across a large area, it also refracts it in uncontrolled ways. Much worse.

Eyeglass wearers - which is worse - a scratch on your eyeglass lens, or having them fog up on you suddenly? Neither is optimal, but most of us have scratches on our eyeglass lenses and live with it. If they stayed fogged up all the time, we'd be unable to see anything.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Here is another set of replicates from the test. Ignore the image taken by the Rigid Summicron due to possible presence of haze in it. Else, I am confident that the results are generalizable. I am first showing images taken with the following lenses (now at f 4.0):

1. Nikkor 5cm/2
2. Canon 50mm/1.2
3. Canon 50mm/2.8
4. Jupiter 3
 
They are:

5. Collapsible Summicron 5cm/2
6. Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2
7. Rigid Summicron
8. Canon 50mm/1.8
 
Last edited:
Now the portions of the window included in the images are roughly equal. Maybe you can see new things that I am not seeing so far.
 
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