Leica LTM KMZ vs Leitz 35mm & 50mm Comparison

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I certainly see that the Jupiter 8 took better shots at all apertures. I wonder if the Leica lens had it's focus off somehow?
 
I thought about that too and I do think it is front focused. But I can see the point at which it is sharpest, and that might be just forward of my focus point on the stick, the close edge of the basket is about 3 inches in closer than the stick and I believe it is at the focal plane. The legs touch the table about 1.5 inches behind the front edge of the basket. and the seam in the table is sharp at the corresponding point in the plane with the front edge of the basket as well. I wonder if the results would change a bit if my focal point were further away than 1 meter. I probably need to re-shoot these.
 
Lamar said:
I thought about that too and I do think it is front focused. But I can see the point at which it is sharpest, and that might be just forward of my focus point on the stick, the close edge of the basket is about 3 inches in closer than the stick and I believe it is at the focal plane. The legs touch the table about 1.5 inches behind the front edge of the basket. and the seam in the table is sharp at the corresponding point in the plane with the front edge of the basket as well. I wonder if the results would change a bit if my focal point were further away than 1 meter. I probably need to re-shoot these.
Click to expand...

Dear Lamar,

Please excuse my ignorance but I really don't understand how a manual focus lens can front focus? Maybe it's because I hear that term all the time on digital message boards and it's generally used as an excuse for an out of focus shot.

Assuming you used a tripod and cable release and focused on the exact same point using the rangefinder of the camera I'm thinking the lenses should focus the same. Can user error be the cause for the front focusing?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking a better way to compare lenses would be to preset the focus using the lens scale at an object a known measured distance from the camera? Doing that and comparing results would probably do a better job of showing whether a lens is properly calibrated and properly working.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to figure out how a $ 50.00 lens consistently beats a less costing far more money in focus accuracy?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Its a rangefinder focus so there is no practical visual way to confirm focus other than with the rangefinder split image. I could measure to the film plane but distance marks on the lens are not precise enough at 1 meter to be accurate at large apertures where the DOF is very narrow. Lenses have to be changed so when each different lens is installed on the body I have to focus the lens using the camera rangefinder. I then leave the focus as is for the remaining shots. It is easy to be just a bit off with the split image that close and wide open even on a tripod. I had the vertical skewer there to make focusing easier. In addition perhaps there is a bit of focus offset related to that lens too but it was more than likely my error . I am really not trying to do a focus check here. I am just trying to see the differences in image quality between the lenses. I've had no focus problems with this lens before that I could not attribute to my own error so that's another reason I think I was just off.

Tim Murphy said:
Dear Lamar,

Please excuse my ignorance but I really don't understand how a manual focus lens can front focus? Maybe it's because I hear that term all the time on digital message boards and it's generally used as an excuse for an out of focus shot.

Assuming you used a tripod and cable release and focused on the exact same point using the rangefinder of the camera I'm thinking the lenses should focus the same. Can user error be the cause for the front focusing?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking a better way to compare lenses would be to preset the focus using the lens scale at an object a known measured distance from the camera? Doing that and comparing results would probably do a better job of showing whether a lens is properly calibrated and properly working.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to figure out how a $ 50.00 lens consistently beats a less costing far more money in focus accuracy?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

You say "I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to figure out how a $ 50.00 lens consistently beats a less costing far more money in focus accuracy?"

We don't know the age, version or condition of the lenses and that has a lot more to do with their performance. The J-8 and Summitar will be old and probably bought second-hand so it's quite likely that the J-8 is in better condition than the Summitar. With second-hand lenses it's a matter of luck what state they are in when purchased. IMO, they all need to be checked and sent them off to be sorted out if necessary. Also, the Summitar might be vintage 1939 (uncoated) or 40's (coated) and the J-8 was a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar but made a lot later on when some things had changed for the better, coatings for example.

Price also depends upon a lot of other factors and not all of them are rational. F'instance many people are delighted with the performance of cheap P&S cameras and then it gets on forums and the price climbs and people are then disappointed as all the old rubbish gets sold off for the new high price, and so it goes on and comes around again.

Regards, David
 
The J-8 and J-12 are from 1956. The 3.5cm Elmar is from 1948 and the Summitar is from 1949 so all are coated lenses according to what I have read. According to the ebay description the Summitar had been recently CLA'ed by Youxin Ye back in early 2015.
 
With FSU photo gear it is always a crap shoot.

Sometimes you luck into a gem, most of the time you do not.

I am speaking from personal experience.
 
Dear Lamar,

That is a reasonable and sensible explanation to me. I know sometimes things happen and they don't often happen as planned or as anticipated.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)


Lamar said:
Its a rangefinder focus so there is no practical visual way to confirm focus other than with the rangefinder split image. I could measure to the film plane but distance marks on the lens are not precise enough at 1 meter to be accurate at large apertures where the DOF is very narrow. Lenses have to be changed so when each different lens is installed on the body I have to focus the lens using the camera rangefinder. I then leave the focus as is for the remaining shots. It is easy to be just a bit off with the split image that close and wide open even on a tripod. I had the vertical skewer there to make focusing easier. In addition perhaps there is a bit of focus offset related to that lens too but it was more than likely my error . I am really not trying to do a focus check here. I am just trying to see the differences in image quality between the lenses. I've had no focus problems with this lens before that I could not attribute to my own error so that's another reason I think I was just off.
Click to expand...
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

You say "I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to figure out how a $ 50.00 lens consistently beats a less costing far more money in focus accuracy?"

We don't know the age, version or condition of the lenses and that has a lot more to do with their performance. The J-8 and Summitar will be old and probably bought second-hand so it's quite likely that the J-8 is in better condition than the Summitar. With second-hand lenses it's a matter of luck what state they are in when purchased. IMO, they all need to be checked and sent them off to be sorted out if necessary. Also, the Summitar might be vintage 1939 (uncoated) or 40's (coated) and the J-8 was a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar but made a lot later on when some things had changed for the better, coatings for example.

Price also depends upon a lot of other factors and not all of them are rational. F'instance many people are delighted with the performance of cheap P&S cameras and then it gets on forums and the price climbs and people are then disappointed as all the old rubbish gets sold off for the new high price, and so it goes on and comes around again.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Dear David,

Now I will be a jerk, sort of.

A $ 50.00 lens should never, ever, ever beat a $ 500.00 lens no matter the circumstances. If you care to argue that, then good luck.

I'm certain if you try hard enough you'll find someone to agree with you. It'll never be me though. ;-)

What people don't often realize is that sometimes you don't get what you paid for. I can admit to that, but can Leicaphiles?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
All looks like not so entertaining.
Go in the real world, do prints from them. You'll know then. Scans means nothing.
 
I've been posting over on APUG in a mirror thread. Sorry for doubling up for those who follow both forums.

Post 1:
I did a little rangefinder checking this morning and found the IIIf I was using for the comparison is focusing about 4-5cm closer than the rangefinder indicates when compared to my IIIc and IIIb. It is the same for both the J-8 and the Summitar so I am assuming any discrepancy between the lenses is negligible and the problem is with the rangefinder on the IIIf. The offset combined with what ever the tolerance is for my far-sight corrected 51 year old Mk I eyeball was most likely the result of the front focused Summitar images in the comparison. Working on figuring out how to adjust a Leica IIIf RF now. I have never had to do it. This IIIf just came back from a CLA as well. I did a quick cursory check on infinity and at a couple of meters when it came back and it appeared to be on but apparently it is just a bit off and at 1m at f/2 it makes a difference.

Post 2:
I figured out the RF adjustment at the viewfinder. Infinity was dead on at first. If I adjusted this infinity was no longer correct. I set it back where infinity is dead on on an airplane con-trail and I'm leaving it there. Close focus still appears to be off by 4-5cm.

Post 3:
From my reading it appears that close focus RF calibration is achieved in an iterative manner by alternately adjusting the infinity focus at the viewfinder and a concentric adjuster on the follower lever until the RF images align at both the 1m and infinity settings. There appears to be a very thin hex nut between the RF follower lever and roller that is the concentric adjustment. I have no tool to fit it so I am stuck for now. I ordered a miniature wrench set so I hope it is thin enough to fit. I can file down if needed I hope. If anyone knows this is not the correct way to set the IIIf RF please advise. Thanks.
 
On film, my 1955 Jupiter-8 is very very good, much sharper across the frame than my 1949 Summitar and OOF is very smooth.
Summitar is maybe sharper in the center.
The Summitar has a very special volume rendition.
Most importantly they draw in a different way.

On my APS-C digital (X-E1) the 1.5x crop factor shows the best part of each lens and there the Summitar was undubtedly "better".
The Jupiter-12 looks wonderfully sharp at 2.8 too on APS-C. Summaron 35/3.5 also great wide open.
I'm finding a very different response on film and see that I need more experience to use those lenses well.

Thank you very much for that nice comparison shots
 
In real life(my life), if a 50 dollar lens is good enough, I won't buy the 500 dollar one just for a bit of extra sharpness/contrast/or whatever.

So there won't be any comparison in the end.

Thanks for the comparison shots though!
 
analoged said:
Still can't really complain about that Jupiter!
Click to expand...

Exactly, and when you consider few people print beyond 5 x 7 it makes even more sense. BTW my local lab told me that 99% of their prints are 6x4 and that made me wonder why people bother...

Especially when you realise that they mostly do digital prints for people direct from media cards. Implying a lot of megapixels paid for and then wasted.

Regards, David
 
No, not at all. I think the Summitar looks a bit sharper in the center especially as you stop down but the J8 looks sharper mid to outer frame. I think on an 8 x 10 print you'd be hard pressed to tell if either was better than the other.

Edit: I will say that when viewing the full images fit-to-screen on my 23 inch monitor that the J8 produces a noticeably sharper image mid to outer frame at f/2 and f/2.8 and I can't detect any discernible center advantage for the Summitar at those apertures. So at f/2 and f/2.8 I say advantage Jupiter 8. At f/4 and fit-to-screen I start seeing a slight advantage in the center for the Summitar and this continues through f/8 with the J8 still just a tad better in the outer frame at those smaller apertures.

analoged said:
Still can't really complain about that Jupiter!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom