raid
Dad Photographer
I took a look at an old thread in which I compared several 50mm lenses, and it occured to me that chosing photos taken at 2.0 could be interesting for new RFF members who have not seen the old thread.
1. Nikon 5cm 2.0 LTM @2.0:
2. Jupiter 3 50mm/1.5 @ 2.0:
3. Canon 50mm 1.8 @ 2.0:
4. Canon 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0:
5. Canon 50mm 1.2 @ 2.0:
6. Zeiss 5cm 2.0 LTM @ 2.0:
7. Summitar 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0:
8. Rigid Summicron 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0 [this lens got adjusted afterwards]:
9. Summarit 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0 [this lens is not optimized for sharpness]:
The lenses may or may not have been in optimal condition, but they are vintage, so this can be expected. I used a tripod and a cable release, but young models move around a lot. The Summarit that I own is "special" in that it is imperfect to he degree that it is close to a soft focs lens.
I feel that all lenses did well here. Imperfections may have been due factors that ary from vintage lens to vintage lens. As portraits, the results look good to my eyes.
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 50mm 1.5
Canon 50mm 1.8
Jupiter 3
Summarit
Summitar
Nikon 5cm2.0
Zeiss 5cm 2.0
Rigid Summicron
1. Nikon 5cm 2.0 LTM @2.0:
2. Jupiter 3 50mm/1.5 @ 2.0:
3. Canon 50mm 1.8 @ 2.0:
4. Canon 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0:
5. Canon 50mm 1.2 @ 2.0:
6. Zeiss 5cm 2.0 LTM @ 2.0:
7. Summitar 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0:
8. Rigid Summicron 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0 [this lens got adjusted afterwards]:
9. Summarit 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0 [this lens is not optimized for sharpness]:
The lenses may or may not have been in optimal condition, but they are vintage, so this can be expected. I used a tripod and a cable release, but young models move around a lot. The Summarit that I own is "special" in that it is imperfect to he degree that it is close to a soft focs lens.
I feel that all lenses did well here. Imperfections may have been due factors that ary from vintage lens to vintage lens. As portraits, the results look good to my eyes.
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 50mm 1.5
Canon 50mm 1.8
Jupiter 3
Summarit
Summitar
Nikon 5cm2.0
Zeiss 5cm 2.0
Rigid Summicron
Last edited:
hugivza
Well-known
Raid - a delightful comparison, you did well to keep your model relatively still. I wonder why the image controller did not like the Summitar image?
raid
Dad Photographer
I like the Summitar image. The Summarit image is soft.
Do you know which image corresponds to which lens?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Raid, your daughters have transcended posing for the camera to a state of bored indifference. "Here comes Daddy with another bunch of lenses to test!"
Kindergarten teacher: "I must admit that your daughter was the first 5 year old I ever had in my class that was able to explain Modulation Transfer Function in a way that actually made sense to me, but this Japanese concept of "bokeh"? I'm still not sure that I really understand it. Perhaps after she teaches me a bit more about the effects of undercorrected spherical abberation..."
Kindergarten teacher: "I must admit that your daughter was the first 5 year old I ever had in my class that was able to explain Modulation Transfer Function in a way that actually made sense to me, but this Japanese concept of "bokeh"? I'm still not sure that I really understand it. Perhaps after she teaches me a bit more about the effects of undercorrected spherical abberation..."
raid
Dad Photographer
Al,
LOL... They both got use to their dad. It is a part of their lives to be photographed by me each weetend.
LOL... They both got use to their dad. It is a part of their lives to be photographed by me each weetend.
Goldorak
-
I don't know. Snapshots served as tests is not very serious now, is it?
I am a new member and I certainly will not chose a lens based on those shots. Would you?
I am a new member and I certainly will not chose a lens based on those shots. Would you?
40oz
...
Go back and look at the entire original test he did. These shots at f/2 are not as conclusive as seeing the whole experiment. IMHO they do show how similar lenses can look in a given shot despite the very real and obvious differences across a spread of shots from each.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Goldarak, you're blind.
My favourite? The Summitar. Flawless.
My favourite? The Summitar. Flawless.
raid
Dad Photographer
It seems that we agreed at one time that these were not "tests" but illustrations how using a vintage lens wih possible flaws could behave. Take it easy. It is just a way to look at a few vintage lenses and in certain user condition.
I would not as much focus on which lens lokks better but more on how a lens could look. The Summicron was later on adjusted. The Canon 50/1.4 [not shown here] had to be adjusted I think [right Mark?]. The Summarit still is dreamy like this and I kept it accordingly as a dreamy focus lens. If such lens comparisons rub the wron way with you, don't get upset. Do you own reading of existing test results by others and test your own lenses.
I was blown away by the Canon 50/1.8 and 50 1.2.
I would not as much focus on which lens lokks better but more on how a lens could look. The Summicron was later on adjusted. The Canon 50/1.4 [not shown here] had to be adjusted I think [right Mark?]. The Summarit still is dreamy like this and I kept it accordingly as a dreamy focus lens. If such lens comparisons rub the wron way with you, don't get upset. Do you own reading of existing test results by others and test your own lenses.
I was blown away by the Canon 50/1.8 and 50 1.2.
raid
Dad Photographer
Please note that the images do not correspond to the listing of the lenses at the bottom. When you right click on any image, the name of the file will reveal the lens.
oftheherd
Veteran
Thanks for your time in doing these things Raid. My only gripe is that you don't own more Kiev mount lenses to test. 
Or better yet, Fujinons
Also, thanks to your daughters. Frankly, I think I enjoyed watching the change of expressions and poses as much or more than looking at the differences in the lenses. By the way, I do see differences and if Golderak can't well, he just can't. His loss.
Or better yet, Fujinons Also, thanks to your daughters. Frankly, I think I enjoyed watching the change of expressions and poses as much or more than looking at the differences in the lenses. By the way, I do see differences and if Golderak can't well, he just can't. His loss.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks for your time in doing these things Raid. My only gripe is that you don't own more Kiev mount lenses to test.
Also, thanks to your daughters. Frankly, I think I enjoyed watching the change of expressions and poses as much or more than looking at the differences in the lenses. By the way, I do see differences and if Golderak can't well, he just can't. His loss.
Well, it takes some time to best understand what to do with such a posting of images. To me, it always was a very simple issue; what can a user of a vintage lens expect in average conditions and with lenses that are owned by many people here. If any of the lense sused shows results that appear as sub-par, we immediately get responses by individuals who own such a lens and who get better results. This is one of the strengths of such lens comparisons. Years ago, Roland [I think it was him] suggested not to use the term "tests" and to use "comparisons". Maybe it is ab "illustration".
Of course, later "comparisons" of the 35mm and 40mm lenses were more detailed, and people seem to have seen what they wanted to see. I never rank any lenses or even give orderings based on what I see in such comparisons since there are many subjective factors involved, inlcuding personal preferences.
Some people seem to feel angry, as if we were trying to put down their favorite lenses. All it takes is to post other images ...
raid
Dad Photographer
These were not snapshots. A heavy tripod was used, and a cable release was used too. One camera was used with one film and one developing. The goal was to see how a lens renders a person's face. There were maybe 10-14 rolls of film in the lens comparisons. Most importantly, RFF members added a lot of information as the images were viewed.
Goldorak
-
Okay. And I, as a rff member, added my grain of salt and I noticed I am not alone in thinking it's a useless test. But I think we both agree it's a useless test since you earlier said it wasn't a test
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Raid's tests are of the actual photographing of real objects and people, much as we all experience. I would prefer this test over one executed with color charts, lines running vertically and horizontally and the like. Would you?
And since he's doing this out of the goodness of his own heart, I don't understand your griping. Don't bother looking. No need to be rude.
mh2000
Well-known
I like the Canon 50/1.8 best.
raid
Dad Photographer
Okay. And I, as a rff member, added my grain of salt and I noticed I am not alone in thinking it's a useless test. But I think we both agree it's a useless test since you earlier said it wasn't a test
You fall within the 35%-40% of RFF members who found such threads useless, so you are not alone in it. On the other hand, 60%-65% found it to be useful. This is more than enough.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Thanks Raid, and a BIG thanks to your daughters.
These days people seem most concerned with sharpness and bokeh. There used to be an interest in so called diffusion filters or soft focus filters such as the Zeiss Softars for Hasselblad lenses. Spiratone made a pretty decent low price alternative. They had a random pattern pressed into the glass. Other brands used concentric circles. They were also available in different strengths. Some photographers used the material of womens' nylon stockings (usually black) stretched across the front of the lens. You could modify the effect by burning holes of various sizes in the center, or putting the material over the front of the hood rather than the lens itself. Have you considered doing some shots to see how these look?
These days people seem most concerned with sharpness and bokeh. There used to be an interest in so called diffusion filters or soft focus filters such as the Zeiss Softars for Hasselblad lenses. Spiratone made a pretty decent low price alternative. They had a random pattern pressed into the glass. Other brands used concentric circles. They were also available in different strengths. Some photographers used the material of womens' nylon stockings (usually black) stretched across the front of the lens. You could modify the effect by burning holes of various sizes in the center, or putting the material over the front of the hood rather than the lens itself. Have you considered doing some shots to see how these look?
chippy
foo was here
that was enjoyable, raid,
i was slowly scolling looking at them not seeing your text at the bottom and before many replies or the lens names added..so i found it interesting to look at them knowing that some things must not be thought of too criticaly/seriously but just a interesting real life comparison with some flaws....
anyway i kinda said to myself, first two hmm, number 3 i pick so far, then got to 5 and thought yeah that one too, 6 missed out because i saw some of 7 and thought it was v/nice, didnt really like 8 and 9 gave me a shock at first but figured a soft focus lens of some sort, so good for effect.
than i saw your text at the bottom and was trying to match up what i picked! and thought ah well, whatever, those are the ones i like at the moment...
anyway that was fun, thanks for showing
i was slowly scolling looking at them not seeing your text at the bottom and before many replies or the lens names added..so i found it interesting to look at them knowing that some things must not be thought of too criticaly/seriously but just a interesting real life comparison with some flaws....
anyway i kinda said to myself, first two hmm, number 3 i pick so far, then got to 5 and thought yeah that one too, 6 missed out because i saw some of 7 and thought it was v/nice, didnt really like 8 and 9 gave me a shock at first but figured a soft focus lens of some sort, so good for effect.
than i saw your text at the bottom and was trying to match up what i picked! and thought ah well, whatever, those are the ones i like at the moment...
anyway that was fun, thanks for showing
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
Raid -- Thanks for re-posting these images. You can clearly see differences among the lenses here, and your comparison is carefully done under controlled conditions (same lighting, subject, use of tripod, same aperture, etc.). I find these comparisons useful, even if others do not, so count me among the 65%.
BTW, you referred to these photos as a "comparison." Others used the term "test" but you did not. It's unfortunate, and a little rude, for people to disparage this lens comparison because it did not meet their definition (whatever that is) of a lens "test."
My two cents.
BTW, you referred to these photos as a "comparison." Others used the term "test" but you did not. It's unfortunate, and a little rude, for people to disparage this lens comparison because it did not meet their definition (whatever that is) of a lens "test."
My two cents.