How about starting a 50mm/1.5 lens test?

Fred,

You have been from the start a major contributor to our lens testing. Few people would send over a Noctilux or a Summilux.
 
ampguy said:
to me, the C-Sonnar (Roland/Raid - is this the new Zeiss one or an old LTM one?), the Summiluxes, and the Nokton 50/1.5 look good.

Am I correct in assuming the background was really green and not blue???
Click to expand...

C-Sonnar is a new type lens. It looks awesome.
The background shows foliage. It is supposed to look green.
 
got it

got it

Fred's decoder explained it well.

Also, the C-Sonnar appears to be optimized for 1.5, well, if you were having a good focus day 😀

raid said:
C-Sonnar is a new type lens. It looks awesome.
The background shows foliage. It is supposed to look green.
Click to expand...
 
Actually the C-Sonnar Raid has in hand is optimized for f/2.8. I've been meaning to get it changed, but...

As for the Nikon S-mount version, I'm not sure what f stop it's optimized for, but have assumed f/2.8. Does anybody know for sure?
 
The Nikon-S mount 50/1.4 came out as very sharp. I will shoot a roll with it tomorrow. I took a roll today with the Summilux-M.
 
Let me throw some stones in the water 🙂

Let me throw some stones in the water 🙂

OK, so here are my conclusions:

.) the CV Nokton, the newer Summilux and the Millenium Nikkor perform very similarly, in terms of field sharpness, bokeh and flare. They would be hard to distinguish for me at this resolution.
.) hard to really conclude about the performance of the C-Sonnar due to shift.
.) in the second tier, the Opton followed by the Canon 50/1.4 performed well.
.) While I did hand-pick what I thought were good J3 sample pictures, the lenses performed admirably.
.) I am not too impressed by the two Summicrons. Clearly though, v2 (rigid) performs better than the collapsible (v1).

Reactions ?

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Good question Pal.

The vintage Nikkor 50/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses (I own two), so I don't feel objective when talking about it. 😱

The wide open shots above are rather typical. But, normally, when you close the Nikkor 50/1.4 down just a little (a 3rd or half stop) it gets very sharp and contrasty.

So I agree, the f2.8 shots above are too soft. Sometimes the wrong adapter can cause this. But I'm not sure.

Roland.
 
Thank you. Maybe due to piece variations, too. If you have two of them, do they perform similarly or are there some differences? I'm interested in this lens, the proportions seems interesting to me, as well as it's fame and flare wide open.
 
The Nikon QA was very good back then, Pal, so I doubt there is much sample variation. But I have found this lens to only work with the original Leica adapters. Other people who have used this lens on the M8 have confirmed that the lens mis-focuses with other adapters.

I have two copies, but those are really different lenses, one of them from the first (Tokyo) batch, the second one more modern.

Try one, I can only recommend them.

Best,

Roland.
 
really interesting.
I know it's a "1.5" lens test but I really would like to see how the heliar classic 50/2 perform conpared to some of those lens, and particulary the c-sonnar & the summilux.
 
I used only Leica M adapters in my test. I am aware of possible problems with non-Leica adapters.

I did not get a Heliar classic for the test.
 
ferider said:
OK, so here are my conclusions:

.) the CV Nokton, the newer Summilux and the Millenium Nikkor perform very similarly, in terms of field sharpness, bokeh and flare. They would be hard to distinguish for me at this resolution.
.) hard to really conclude about the performance of the C-Sonnar due to shift.
.) in the second tier, the Opton followed by the Canon 50/1.4 performed well.
.) While I did hand-pick what I thought were good J3 sample pictures, the lenses performed admirably.
.) I am not too impressed by the two Summicrons. Clearly though, v2 (rigid) performs better than the collapsible (v1).

Reactions ?

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...


Roland,

I agree with your findings above.
The new Summilux-M and the Millenium stood out as the leaders among the thirty odd lenses tested. The CV Nokton may be [in my humble opinion] a tiny level lower. Now don't get angry at me.

The Canon 50/1.4 did very well. Not surprsing that its optical performance is listed as "superb" in some online Canon lens summary sheets. The Opton is my own lens, and I got it from Brian Sweeney, who may have adjusted it when he had the lens. I was quite surprised at how well the Opton did. Don't forget how tough the "competiton" is.


The two Summicrons were both mine, and they both appear as less optimal than the above group of lenses.

It is maybe useful to know that I did not use any lens hood at any time during the test.
 
ferider said:
The Nikon QA was very good back then, Pal, so I doubt there is much sample variation. But I have found this lens to only work with the original Leica adapters. Other people who have used this lens on the M8 have confirmed that the lens mis-focuses with other adapters.

I have two copies, but those are really different lenses, one of them from the first (Tokyo) batch, the second one more modern.

Try one, I can only recommend them.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...


Roland,

As you know, we work with the lenses that are available for the test, so individual lens variations cannot be accounted for here. There is also room for human error during the testing. My hope is that repeated testing brings out the "truth" in the end.

We always like individuals to add notes on their own experiences with similar lenses. Such additions help in clariying or exposing errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom