raid
Dad Photographer
NIKON KIU said:
Kiu: Mark has offered me to test his Canon 50/0.95! Will you mail me your lenses now?
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
Please note that my Zeiss Sonnar is most likely a pre-war version that mechanically looks bad but optically looks great according to DAG [and me] who three times worked on this lens.
Raid
Raid
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Summarit @ f4 shot is very front focused.
ampguy
Veteran
not a surprise
not a surprise
The zeiss at f2 is simply out of focus.
not a surprise
The zeiss at f2 is simply out of focus.
Pherdinand said:Funny:
Your test indicates the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 being considerably worse than the Jupiter-8.
As i mentioned earlier in the first thread, I expected them to be exactly the same if both in good conditionThat statement was somewhat a surprise to a few people. Now this result is... Surprise-surprise!
raid
Dad Photographer
DAG adjusted the lens for me, so this is a surprise.
Raid
Raid
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Raid
Hi Raid
assuming your vision and camera system (mount, film plane distances, vf/rf system) are perfect, while theres a slight chance of a minor collimation thing going on, I think it may also be this:
When you focus, can you not turn or nudge the focus nut or barrel or lever a "smidgeon" (1 deg or so) either way, and it's still in focus?
My lenses, even when tripod mounted and I spend minutes composing, are sometimes slightly off so sometimes I will "bracket" moving that smidgeon of play back and forth (especially if digital). I would hazard a guess that if you focused as you normally do, then move some of those a smidgeon, the least possible movement possible, towards infinity, you might be closer to center focus on your subject, all the while with the images still being perfectly focused in the RF/VF.
HOWEVER, since you're using film, and this is time consuming and expensive, PLEASE don't do it for me, only if you are interested in more center focusing your subject yourself.
Hi Raid
assuming your vision and camera system (mount, film plane distances, vf/rf system) are perfect, while theres a slight chance of a minor collimation thing going on, I think it may also be this:
When you focus, can you not turn or nudge the focus nut or barrel or lever a "smidgeon" (1 deg or so) either way, and it's still in focus?
My lenses, even when tripod mounted and I spend minutes composing, are sometimes slightly off so sometimes I will "bracket" moving that smidgeon of play back and forth (especially if digital). I would hazard a guess that if you focused as you normally do, then move some of those a smidgeon, the least possible movement possible, towards infinity, you might be closer to center focus on your subject, all the while with the images still being perfectly focused in the RF/VF.
HOWEVER, since you're using film, and this is time consuming and expensive, PLEASE don't do it for me, only if you are interested in more center focusing your subject yourself.
raid said:
like2fiddle
Curious
It's hard not to like that Canon 1.5. My Summitar gives me a little more detail wide open than the test Summitar did.
Rafael
Mandlerian
Great test Raid! Thanks for taking the time to do this. As for results, it is nice to see two of my recent purchases (J-3 and Canon 50/1.4) performing so well.
Rafael
Mandlerian
I too am impressed by the Canon 50/1.5.
raid
Dad Photographer
ampguy said:
Ted and Roland: So this could be due to my focusing and it is not a problematic issue with the lens. Right?
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
ferider said:
Roland: I expected it to be softer than the Canon 50/1.4, but it is not. You have build up additional support for your beloved Sonnar!
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
ampguy said:
Ted: It is fortunate that I have already done two tests on most of my 50mm lenses, including the sharp Nikon 50/2 and the highly acceptable Zeiss lens. Both lenses did well in earlier tests, so this may be my [human] error of getting bored after testing many lenses at different aperture settings. If I had the time, I would shoot an entireroll with each of these two lenses, which happen to be among my favorite 50mm lenses.
Don at DAG made sure that the Zeiss focused accuratelyand he also cleaned it. The Nikon always was sharp and accurate in focusing it wide open. It also came out as the front runner in the earlier test for flare resistance.
I will take extra care with focusing in the next part of this test, and especially with any lens that showed surprisingly low performance in the first focusing test.
Raid
kevin m
Veteran
kevin m
Veteran
kevin m
Veteran
Akk! :bang:
I see that if you roll your cursor over the image the name pops up, and the surprise is ruined.
Just click and look. No fair cheating!
I see that if you roll your cursor over the image the name pops up, and the surprise is ruined.
Just click and look. No fair cheating!
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland: With 11~12 shots taken at 2.0, it should be then expected to get two shots off; the Nikon and the Zeiss
Raid
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
kevin m said:...and here are the 100% crops.
See if you can tell which is which. No fair if I label them for you!
Kevin: These photos are from your test, so why don't you tell us what you have concluded regarding these two Canon lenses?
edited: Canon and Leitz lenses.
Raid
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Hi Raid, Sorry to jump on your post, but I thought the info on the Canon 50 f1.5 was relevant.
The two shots I posted are from the Canon 50/1.5 and the pre-asph Summilux 50. Both wide open, near close-focus limit for each. (If you roll your cursor over the small images, you'll see the file names, and that tells you which is which.)
Wide open, the Leica is sharper at the center and has more contrast than the Canon. I also think it renders color more accurately, the Canon being slightly 'cool.' I also prefer the Leica's oof drawing, as it has a more natural look to my eye. The Leica improves very quickly stopped down, with noticeable improvement by f1.7. I find it to be a very pleasant lens overall, with a very 'natural' look to its imaging. The Canon's signature sonnar look is less appealing to me.
The Canon is only technically 'worse' than the 'lux wide open, though. Every other difference is a either matter of taste in imagining, or handling ergonomics. The Canon is an outstanding lens for being 50 years old. I'm half-tempted to get something like a IIIf Leica to use it with.
I still think the pre-asph Summilux 50 is Leica's best-ever 'people' lens, though, despite its detractors and even compared to the new Aspherical 50. The only stop where I feel it can be described as technically weak is f1.4. Again, by f1.7 it improves noticeably. (FWIW, I keep an 8x ND filter in my bag so I can shoot between f2.0 and f4.0 with this lens for wedding work. ) If you shoot landscapes, or subject matter that benefits from a flatter field and a more highly corrected look, and your female subjects are all under 25 with perfect skin, then a Summicron 50 or the new Asph have advantages, of course. Horses for courses, and all that.
The two shots I posted are from the Canon 50/1.5 and the pre-asph Summilux 50. Both wide open, near close-focus limit for each. (If you roll your cursor over the small images, you'll see the file names, and that tells you which is which.)
Wide open, the Leica is sharper at the center and has more contrast than the Canon. I also think it renders color more accurately, the Canon being slightly 'cool.' I also prefer the Leica's oof drawing, as it has a more natural look to my eye. The Leica improves very quickly stopped down, with noticeable improvement by f1.7. I find it to be a very pleasant lens overall, with a very 'natural' look to its imaging. The Canon's signature sonnar look is less appealing to me.
The Canon is only technically 'worse' than the 'lux wide open, though. Every other difference is a either matter of taste in imagining, or handling ergonomics. The Canon is an outstanding lens for being 50 years old. I'm half-tempted to get something like a IIIf Leica to use it with.
I still think the pre-asph Summilux 50 is Leica's best-ever 'people' lens, though, despite its detractors and even compared to the new Aspherical 50. The only stop where I feel it can be described as technically weak is f1.4. Again, by f1.7 it improves noticeably. (FWIW, I keep an 8x ND filter in my bag so I can shoot between f2.0 and f4.0 with this lens for wedding work. ) If you shoot landscapes, or subject matter that benefits from a flatter field and a more highly corrected look, and your female subjects are all under 25 with perfect skin, then a Summicron 50 or the new Asph have advantages, of course. Horses for courses, and all that.
ampguy
Veteran
much better than my eyes and focusing
much better than my eyes and focusing
Roland, that's much better than I can do, probably 50% of my up close wide open shots are out of focus, which is why the R-D1 may pay for itself faster than with other folks who focus better.
Raid, If I attempted what you did with those sequential test shots, I would have been much more off and would have gone through many rolls to get even as good of focusing as you did.
much better than my eyes and focusing
Roland, that's much better than I can do, probably 50% of my up close wide open shots are out of focus, which is why the R-D1 may pay for itself faster than with other folks who focus better.
Raid, If I attempted what you did with those sequential test shots, I would have been much more off and would have gone through many rolls to get even as good of focusing as you did.
ferider said:
raid
Dad Photographer
kevin m said:Hi Raid, Sorry to jump on your post, but I thought the info on the Canon 50 f1.5 was relevant.
The two shots I posted are from the Canon 50/1.5 and the pre-asph Summilux 50. Both wide open, near close-focus limit for each. (If you roll your cursor over the small images, you'll see the file names, and that tells you which is which.)
Wide open, the Leica is sharper at the center and has more contrast than the Canon. I also think it renders color more accurately, the Canon being slightly 'cool.' I also prefer the Leica's oof drawing, as it has a more natural look to my eye. The Leica improves very quickly stopped down, with noticeable improvement by f1.7. I find it to be a very pleasant lens overall, with a very 'natural' look to its imaging. The Canon's signature sonnar look is less appealing to me.
The Canon is only technically 'worse' than the 'lux wide open, though. Every other difference is a either matter of taste in imagining, or handling ergonomics. The Canon is an outstanding lens for being 50 years old. I'm half-tempted to get something like a IIIf Leica to use it with.
I still think the pre-asph Summilux 50 is Leica's best-ever 'people' lens, though, despite its detractors and even compared to the new Aspherical 50. The only stop where I feel it can be described as technically weak is f1.4. Again, by f1.7 it improves noticeably. (FWIW, I keep an 8x ND filter in my bag so I can shoot between f2.0 and f4.0 with this lens for wedding work. ) If you shoot landscapes, or subject matter that benefits from a flatter field and a more highly corrected look, and your female subjects are all under 25 with perfect skin, then a Summicron 50 or the new Asph have advantages, of course. Horses for courses, and all that.
Kevin: Do you consider the pre-asph Summilux to be a vintage lens? :bang:
Thanks for your additional information, but we left out any "modern" lenses from this test. Nobody is making claims beyond the lenses included in the test.
Regards,
Raid