First Results: Test of Fifteen 50mm Lenses

NIKON KIU said:
OK...You want sharp? wait untill you see what the 55 year old Nikkor(untested) can do!!

I am still willing to expand this test....I will send Raid My Nikkor 1.1 and my millenium Nikkor if someone volunteers a Canon .95,Leica 1 OH(as chris weeks puts it) or even a Cosina 1.5!!

This is an arm twisting offer, I'll pay for return shipping!!

Kiu
Click to expand...


Kiu: Mark has offered me to test his Canon 50/0.95! Will you mail me your lenses now?

Raid
 
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
 
Last edited:
not a surprise

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 condition🙂 That statement was somewhat a surprise to a few people. Now this result is... Surprise-surprise!
Click to expand...
 
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.


raid said:
DAG adjusted the lens for me, so this is a surprise.

Raid
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
ferider said:
The Canon 1.5 is a great lens. And sharper than people usually give it credit for.

Roland.
Click to expand...


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
 
ampguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I expected it to be softer than the Canon 50/1.4, but it is not.
Click to expand...

It is, however, softer than the pre-aspherical Summilux 50 wide-open. And of course, the oof look differs quite a bit. Magus would likely say "entirely different" 😀
 

Attachments

  • test50:1.5.jpg
    test50:1.5.jpg
    280 KB · Views: 0
  • test50:1.4.jpg
    test50:1.4.jpg
    272.3 KB · Views: 0
...and here are the 100% crops.

See if you can tell which is which. No fair if I label them for you! 😉
 

Attachments

  • test50:1.5:2.jpg
    test50:1.5:2.jpg
    313.4 KB · Views: 0
  • test50:1.4:2.jpg
    test50:1.4:2.jpg
    370.8 KB · Views: 0
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
 
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! 😉
Click to expand...


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:
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. 😀
 
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.

ferider said:
Maybe yes, Raid. Nikkors are usually very well collimated and you used this lens before, so I assume it is user error.
Happens to me all the time with a 50 wide open and close up, also on the M3 (20% of the shots or so).

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
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. 😀
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom