It's not sharp...or is it?

[rogerzilla]

I was convinced my new Summarit 35mm lens wasn't sharp. The photos just didn't have the bite I expected.

I shot a series of test charts and guess what? In terms of resolving power, it's indistinguishable from my DR Summicron 50, which is a legendarily sharp lens and certainly one about which I have no complaints.

Does anyone else find that the older lower-contrast lenses *look* sharper despite being no better, or actually worse, in lines per millimetre? I don't care about test charts really; I just want the photos to look as if the sharpness keeps on going for ever.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

No, the version 1 Summicron 35mm is renown for its very high resolution and comes very near my Summicron asph, but the asph is of course a much better corrected lens. So, if you look for crispiness - resolving power, try the Summicron version 1 or version 5 (asph). I have also the other versions, 2, 3 and 4, whereby I find the 2 and 3 sharper (due to higher contrast than the version 1 but not higher resolving power) than the 4, the latter known as the king of bokeh, but IMHO not a king for sharpness or high resolution.

But if you would like to start with a more moderate older lens, then the Summaron 2.8 35mm would be very nice to take a test against the Summarit (btw I never had a Summarit 35mm so can't judge that lens). The Summaron has a more modest resolving power than the Summicron version I, but is a bit more contrasty.

Here is a high res pictures of a shot which I made two weeks ago for testing an old camera on ISO 200 color film with the Summaron 2.8 35mm:
http://kpmg0072.home.xs4all.nl/200 asa film/test 32a Zorki4K.jpg

 

[rogerzilla]

Yes, the Summicron v1 (goggled or not) is probably the one I should have to match the DR 50.

 

[Shac]

I did some tests recently of my 35mm's, a V1 & V2 Summicron & an LTM 2.8
Summaron - at 1m and also infinity. At 1 m (f2, 2.8 & 4) V1 was sharpest (centre and corners) while at infinity V4 was best all round. Both the other 2 at infinity were not sharp at the corners. I'll probably repeat to make sure but it was interesting to me

 

[splitimageview]

The 35/2.8 Summaron is exceptional and in some tests better than its contemporary the 35/2 Summicron v1.

Erwin Puts: the 35 /2 ,8 Summaron shows "....no distortion. The lens is
an excellent performer and is better than the 8 element
Summicron at f 2.8. Overall contrast is high and the central
definition is very high, bringing in fine detail with clarity and
over most of the image area. Stopping down to f/4 increases
micro contrast and now very fine details is crisply rendered
with the exception of the corners. Best aperture is f 5.6 where
truly excellent image quality is delivered."

The resolving power 12mm off axis is quite interesting in this comparison test here from LHSA Viewfinder.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Best aperture is f 5.6 where
truly excellent image quality is delivered."

The resolving power 12mm off axis is quite interesting in this comparison test here from LHSA Viewfinder.

In the picture under the hyp link I used the Summaron at f 5.6 (the ltm version testing a repaired Zorki 4K for a fellow member)

 

[Shac]

The 35/2.8 Summaron is exceptional and in some tests better than its contemporary the 35/2 Summicron v1.
........
The resolving power 12mm off axis is quite interesting in this comparison test here from LHSA Viewfinder.

Thanks - seen both those but so far mine isn't living up to these claims. I will test further but even with the vintage lenses there must be some individual variation. My summaron is damn-near LN inside and out. The build quality of the V1 and Summaron is superb of course

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Here is another high res pic from the same 200 iso film shot with that same Summaron (ltm):

http://kpmg0072.home.xs4all.nl/200%20asa%20film/test%2019%20Zorki4K.jpg

 

[splitimageview]

I'm glad there are others that do lens tests as I find them tedious to do myself. But ultimately and ironically, it's the subjective 'look' that counts much more to me, as opposed to the lp/mm of an objective test.

 

[rogerzilla]

Exactly. In the end I want a lens that sees as my eyes see, not the lens that comes out best when fed an alternating pattern of lines and analysed on a computer. I'm on a photo day with someone in two weeks' time and he has a current model Summicron 35mm ASPH; I'll try and get a shot with that on film. According to the tests I've read, it is no sharper than the Summarit and has worse bokeh (the Summarit really has nice bokeh, I'll give it that)...although it is better built and half a stop faster. I expect it will have the same high-contrast look, which is probably great for colour and digital but I'm not sure is suited to b/w film, where the grain can "block up" in darker areas.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Exactly. In the end I want a lens that sees as my eyes see, not the lens that comes out best when fed an alternating pattern of lines and analysed on a computer. I'm on a photo day with someone in two weeks' time and he has a current model Summicron 35mm ASPH; I'll try and get a shot with that on film. According to the tests I've read, it is no sharper than the Summarit and has worse bokeh (the Summarit really has nice bokeh, I'll give it that)...although it is better built and half a stop faster. I expect it will have the same high-contrast look, which is probably great for colour and digital but I'm not sure is suited to b/w film, where the grain can "block up" in darker areas.

In the end, especially when working with film, the asph comes out best, but that doesn't say I don't like the images shot with the Summaron or with lets say a 50mm Russian Jupiter. But if I would have shot that same picture here in the web link with the asph, you surely would see some difference and my eyes are still good enough - so don't need a lab test - for seeing that difference; but that has nothing to do with appreciating images made with old glass. But seeing your responses now I guess I might have misunderstood your initial question.

 

[ScottAlexander]

The only way to test 'sharpness' is to print the neg traditionally, as any given scanner likely isn't resolving the image at its true potential. Really, sharpness doesn't exist. Only focus. 😉

If you realize that, you're going to save a lot not buying 'lux lenses

 

[jsrockit]

I was convinced my new Summarit 35mm lens wasn't sharp. The photos just didn't have the bite I expected.

Either you had a lemon or you weren't using it right...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

If your lens isn't sharp, it may actually be slightly off in focus. I have a 50mm Summicron with focus tab that was very slightly off, it needed its focus cam adjusted and after I had Don Goldberg adjust it, the lens became EXTREMELY sharp.

 

[rogerzilla]

Nah, it's bang on. I calculate 50 lp/mm in the centre at f/2.5 on Neopan Acros (Rodinal 1:25) which is exactly what Erwin Puts got with his example. It's not quite as sharp as the DR Summicron if you look really closely, but that is crazy, crazy sharp: here's an UNSHARPENED 100% crop from the DR. Neopan Acros in Rodinal 1:50 this time, so maybe a bit of Eberhard effect but, even so, the DR must be getting almost 100 lp/mm on film.