Wow, just goes to show that incremental difference really don't matter. All of this equipment works great, so you just can't go wrong.
sanmich
Veteran
For some parameters, you may be right (bokeh, distortion, rendition in general), but it would be a stretch to compare these lenses based on an internet post...
My point is that they are all capable of great photos as long as they are pointed at the right subject(s). Everything else is subtle. Nobody but photo geeks care about this stuff. I'm not exempt.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Print them at 16x20 or even larger and differences will be much more apparent, as I'm sure you know. This post is good fun, don't get me wrong, but web-sized images are a superficial basis to judge the lenses' worthiness for one's needs.
sanmich
Veteran
I guess you are right and the difference between these specific lenses ARE subtle, but come on, you know that any lens with a decent rendition could look the same at that viewing resolution. even a lens with seriously poor resolution abilities.
Last edited:
bwcolor
Veteran
I don't believe that the Zeiss's difference from the others was so subtle. This is by far my favorite 'all-around' lens, but then again, of the 35s that I own, it was the only one on the list. I may change my mind when I use it on a digital camera.. don't know...haven't tried.
sanmich
Veteran
Well, that's my point.
I see very little difference based on the web resolution shots.
Each one of these are capable of large prints though too. I stand by my statement that only equipment geeks care about these differences.
Last edited:
smk
Established
ha ha, I got every single one wrong! What I learned from this exercise is that (based on these images) I like the drawing of the V2, and I dislike the Summilux pre-ASPH!
srtiwari
Daktari
A humbling revelation ! I knew I should have taken all the 'Expert' opinions with a pinch of salt. Apparently, all this agonizing over which lens to buy based on their (imagined) differences is quite unnecessary. The good news is, they are all wonderful lenses. Now, to go ahead and sell the pricier ones...
bwcolor
Veteran
I don't understand. I'm saying just the opposite. There was a large difference on my monitor, which made the qualities of the Zeiss evident. I must admit that I was only trying to find the Zeiss in that I had no personal experience with the other lenses and that the other lenses seemed much alike to my eye.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, I'll be.
This certainly proves that sized-down JPEG samples of nonregulated shots can fool just about anyone, except the nut-finding brave! I can see Mr. Putts (in his division by zero grammar) saying "that's why the micro-differences, in tests, under the telescope can best be seen".
This certainly proves that sized-down JPEG samples of nonregulated shots can fool just about anyone, except the nut-finding brave! I can see Mr. Putts (in his division by zero grammar) saying "that's why the micro-differences, in tests, under the telescope can best be seen".
leicashot
Well-known
If anyone is interested I did a couple of comparison shots between the Biogon 35/2 and the Nokton II 35/1.2, both at f/2 and there is NO CONTEST. The Nokton wiped the floor with the Biogon. Sorry I can't post the pictures as I don't have permission from the subject.
sanmich
Veteran
Did you look at high res or at the full screen flickr lowish resolution?
If the latter, it must be my eyes...
bwcolor
Veteran
Did you look at high res or at the full screen flickr lowish resolution?
If the latter, it must be my eyes...
The thing that I like about the Zeiss is the rendering of color and the saturation/micro contrast. I viewed only the res posting on this site. So, I was fixated on only one aspect of the image. It could be my monitor. I viewed on a large Hanns-G which is a cheap monitor, but calibrated.. for what that is worth. I did not view on my higher quality Lacie monitor.
bwcolor
Veteran
If time and a stray cat goes by, maybe this would be a good topic for a new thread.... 'Cat on Freshly Wiped Floor' At least without permission, the cat would have a hard time with legal challenges.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
#1: Almost everyone got it, especially those of us who use it. Key clues: the well-articulated OOF, especially the foliage (I have a lot of C-Biogon pictures with foliage at about those spatial frequencies); saturated color rendering; hints of vignetting and hints of color shift in the corners (the latter wouldn't be a problem with film). Here's one shot on Ektar 100:
#2: The Summilux was recognized by its lower contrast and, more importantly, by under-corrected spherical aberration (see the OOF areas at the periphery of the frame, especially in the first set). This would be expected from an ultra-fast lens designed in 1961, even one as outstanding and far ahead of its time as the 'lux.
Purely out of curiosity: the contrast on the 'lux is still very good. Do you have any idea when it was manufactured? I'd expect that the later iterations (mid-1970s to 1990) would have considerably better antireflective optical coatings and commensurately higher contrast.
#3 and #4 were a lot more challenging, especially since I have no personal experience with the lenses beyond looking at pictures on the web. I guessed #3 was the Summarit due to the higher contrast of the finest visible texture and detail (the graffiti, for example) in the first set of pictures. That's been a fingerprint of the modern Leica lenses for some time but it's not easy to see with certainty - weak sauce. Could easily have been wrong.
Last edited:
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Ok well I thought I would take another set of pictures using a tripod. All pics from the distance of 0.9 m, which is the minimum with the Summilux. First thing I noticed was that the field of view varied slightly between the lenses. Camera and tripod were not moved. Again straight out of the camera and saved as Jpegs via Capture One.
L9998867Summilux by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998866nokton by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998865Summarit by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998864Biogon by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998867Summilux by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998866nokton by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998865Summarit by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
L9998864Biogon by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
Last edited:
nobbylon
Veteran
I know this was all done in fun but it showed me that I actually liked the biogon most in the photos at the settings they were taken. I also liked all the others.
It doesn't mean that it will be the same result if the subject changed etc etc.
I like my v4 Summicron but I can't tell it apart from my Ultron unless I have identical shots side by side.
At the print sizes most of us will do we would probably not see any differences between any of these until you start seeing a collection of pictures with many different subjects and then maybe you could say which lens was used and even then only if you use one particular lens constantly and can recognise it's qualities. It's definately interesting that most of us picked the non Leica lenses as our favorites! It was exactly the same when I did my Summilux, V4 Summicron and Ultron poll! The Ultron won.
It doesn't mean that it will be the same result if the subject changed etc etc.
I like my v4 Summicron but I can't tell it apart from my Ultron unless I have identical shots side by side.
At the print sizes most of us will do we would probably not see any differences between any of these until you start seeing a collection of pictures with many different subjects and then maybe you could say which lens was used and even then only if you use one particular lens constantly and can recognise it's qualities. It's definately interesting that most of us picked the non Leica lenses as our favorites! It was exactly the same when I did my Summilux, V4 Summicron and Ultron poll! The Ultron won.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Again, these are four of the best 35's ever designed and manufactured. For what it's worth, before I tried to figure out which lens was which, I asked which I preferred. And the answer, by a hair over #1, was #3 – the Summarit.
Bottom line: I'm absolutely amazed that under these conditions (f/2.8, 0.7 megapixel image size) any of us were able to see real differences between these lenses, let alone identify any of them by its fingerprint. And I'm more convinced than ever that – unless you really need speed – the C-Biogon and the Summarit are the best* medium-wide lenses ever made for 35mm photography.
*Best-behaved (especially in adverse lighting), most predictable, with as little "character" as possible, and extremely compact and lightweight.
Bottom line: I'm absolutely amazed that under these conditions (f/2.8, 0.7 megapixel image size) any of us were able to see real differences between these lenses, let alone identify any of them by its fingerprint. And I'm more convinced than ever that – unless you really need speed – the C-Biogon and the Summarit are the best* medium-wide lenses ever made for 35mm photography.
*Best-behaved (especially in adverse lighting), most predictable, with as little "character" as possible, and extremely compact and lightweight.