five 50mm's compared

[laptoprob]

This comparison was done on a Hexar RF on a rather cold and slightly grey day. A low contrast lighting test. I did similar shots on the different lenses at f2, f4 and f8. Focus was at my bike at around 10m distance. That means at f8 infinity is within hyperfical distance, but proves not to be quite sharp with all lenses.
I will post similar aperture shots and crops together.
The five lenses are Canon 1,2, Elmar, Quinon, Rigid Summicron, and Hexanon.
Maybe I made a mistake to use the camera in AE-lock mode. Manual might have been more consistent. However, I am very happy with the performance of the Elmar and the Quinon. I will try a more careful and more sunny test later.

First wide open, f2 or bigger. This first batch therefore without Elmar.

 

[laptoprob]

Second, at f8.

 

[laptoprob]

I have crops of the tower bit at f4. Thus all apertures are around the same.

 

[laptoprob]

And crops of my bike, the center of focus. At f8 to show max. performance.

I was surprised how small the difference is. Maybe a more careful with higher contrast lighting will yield greater differences.

 

[RayPA]

Hi Rob.

Nice collection of lenses. Good job. You guys with these lens test amaze me.

I don't know what would happen if I stood that long in a public place with a camera taking the same picture of a public building, over and over. Somebody would probably call HS.

I'd like to do a similar test, with the Hexanon lenses. I'm building some suspisions about them.

BTW, did you ever get your Ultron 35?

🙂

 

[laptoprob]

Yes Ray, I have the Ultron. In comparison now with the Canon 35/2,8 and the flat Elmar.

cheers, Rob.

 

[RayPA]

Yes Ray, I have the Ultron. In comparison now with the Canon 35/2,8 and the flat Elmar.

cheers, Rob.

Looking forward to that.

🙂

 

[laptoprob]

f2 crop

f2 crop

Some more information. Film used was Ilford Pan F+ ISO50, developed is D76 1+3. To correct for rotary processing I cut the dev time by around 7%.
The 1,2 Canon was slightly hazy in this test, I cleaned it afterwards. The Elmar is an uncoated one from 1935, unforturately not in pristine conditon. It has quite a bit of scratches. The other lenses'optics are about great or just great.

Here are crops of the focused area, the bike at f2. The Elmar is included at f3,5.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[laptoprob]

If you move over the photos you will see the first pic is the canon at f1,2. The second is the canon at f2.
I should have mentioned that, sorry.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Rob,

1) Thankyou for the comparison.
2) Great... Now I will be looking for a Quinon. Hope to find one in some different mount and redo it for the Nikon.
3) Which Version of the Rigid Summicron is this? I've found differences between the first three versions.

 

[raid]

This is an interesting test of lenses in the field. I have been thinking of doing a similar test, but have so far done testing only inside our home and in the yard.

 

[laptoprob]

Quinon...

Quinon...

Rob,

1) Thankyou for the comparison.
2) Great... Now I will be looking for a Quinon. Hope to find one in some different mount and redo it for the Nikon.
3) Which Version of the Rigid Summicron is this? I've found differences between the first three versions.

Well Brian, I only know these lenses are very, very rare. I knew one in a shop in Austria but it is sold now. There were Quinons made for Exacta as well but very different lens designs were also called Quinon. Frank (Taunusreiter, Sonnar2) knows more about these. So good luck!
I would like to know when my Quinon was made. I know Dr. Bertele (mr. Sonnar himself) worked some time at Steinheil Muenchen in '43 I believe before going to Switzerland. I have no idea how involved he might have been in the building of hte Quinon Sonnar with Steinheil. There is sadly almost no info on Steinheil on the web.

Which Summicron... 14000xx is the number. afaik it is of the first series, together with the DR.

I will be trying another, more contrast-lighted setup. And with the exposure on manual. I did this on AE because on another test attempt I found very different exposures because - I think - e.g. f4 may not be the same on different lenses. That test attempt remained an attempt because the shutter appeared to be full of holes.

 

[doubs43]

There were Quinons made for Exacta as well but very different lens designs were also called Quinon.

Among the Exakta crowd, the auto-Quinons are well thought of and bidding for them on ebay can go fairly high. I don't own a Quinon in any mount but I do have an 85mm Culminar in Exakta mount and it's a decent lens. I also have a 135mm Culminar in LTM that looks to be new. I have yet to take a picture with it so can't really comment about it's performance.

While Steinheil was considered 2nd-tier among lenses, I think they're better than many believe. The optics seem to be very good while the aluminum mounts aren't up to Leitz or Zeiss standards. That's my take on them, anyway.

Walker

 

[NoTx]

The five lenses are Canon 1,2, Elmar, Quinon, Rigid Summicron, and Hexanon.

Er, which Hexanon?

 

[laptoprob]

How about the 50mm Hexanon? I was a bit disappointed by this lens. Maybe something in my method did not do justice to this lens. That is why I will compare the Quinon to the Summicron again but then perhaps under more sunny circumstances, but definitely in manual to get the exposure exactly the same (hopefully). Then I can properly compare contrast as well.

I was searching again last night, on one of the Japanese sites I think I see the Quinon on the Casca. The mounted lens looks a lot like my Quinon, but is only a side view.

A Quinon was made for the Braun Paxette too, This may very well be a Sonnar-Quinon. Most type-listed Quinons I have come across are listed among the Planar lenses.

 

[pvdhaar]

How about the 50mm Hexanon? I was a bit disappointed by this lens. Maybe something in my method did not do justice to this lens.

I had wondered about that too. It seems severely outclassed by all others in your test. My personal experience though is that it's a lens that has a sort of Jekyll/Hyde personality to it.

At f2, it's plenty sharp in the center but somewhat less contrasty in the corners. The resolution is there, but the bite is not. It's a flattering lens wide open.

At f4 it suddenly changes character, it gets wicked sharp. I don't know wether it's the resolution that really changes, or that it's the contrast that gets a tremendous bump. If you did your test in bland lighting, this may not have come out they way we'd expected. This aggressiveness of the lens tailors off a bit from f8-f16, perhaps because of diffraction.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the lens designers seem to have paid a lot of attention to out of focus areas. With distance set at 10m, when you magnify objects at infinity, you see that they're not entirely in focus even at f8. But the bokeh doesn't get gnarly, so the impression of softness is reinforced.

Of all the 50mm-ish lenses I've had (helios, fed, ricoh, 4x nikons) its the sharpest by a fair margin..