bob338
Well-known
it was hotter than hell in sausalito today, so while my son took a nap i decided to take a series of pictures in the yard with my new m6.
the subject is pretty mundane and the files are reduced to save space, but here are three pictures of the same window with three different leica 35mm lenses.
all pictures were taken at f5.6 on fuji pro 160c within a few seconds of each other. the lenses used were(in no particular order...)
2.8 LTM summaron
2.0 M3 summicron with eyes
2.0 summicron asph
so please choose which is the most pleasant to look at. if you care to guess which is which, please do so...
and thanks to bob at framelines for processing my film in two hours flat!
the subject is pretty mundane and the files are reduced to save space, but here are three pictures of the same window with three different leica 35mm lenses.
all pictures were taken at f5.6 on fuji pro 160c within a few seconds of each other. the lenses used were(in no particular order...)
2.8 LTM summaron
2.0 M3 summicron with eyes
2.0 summicron asph
so please choose which is the most pleasant to look at. if you care to guess which is which, please do so...
and thanks to bob at framelines for processing my film in two hours flat!
Attachments
Last edited:
abenner
undecided
I don't think one could anticipate much difference between three 35mm lenses stopped down to 5.6 on a close subject. I can't tell any from these photos.
bob338
Well-known
nobbylon
Veteran
my guess is
number 1, summaron
number 2, summicron asph
number 3, summicron m3 goggles
It's very difficult at 5.6 to see a difference, maybe do at 2.8 and see what happens.
number 1, summaron
number 2, summicron asph
number 3, summicron m3 goggles
It's very difficult at 5.6 to see a difference, maybe do at 2.8 and see what happens.
Sam N
Well-known
The one on the right looks darker. Since the M6 has a mechanical shutter, this could be due to slight variation in the shutter speed. The center photo looks a bit brighter as well, which could make it look as if it has less contrast. It's very difficult to comment on detail or sharpness with images of this size. I'd be more interested in how these lenses do at 2.8 or 2.0 (for the ones that can). By f5.6, these lenses should all give excellent results.
If you use a tripod and use the same focus point for each lens, it would be easier to compare the photos.
If you use a tripod and use the same focus point for each lens, it would be easier to compare the photos.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
At that lens opening and this size, it should be impossible to see a difference between these lenses (and probably any 35mm from any self-respecting lens producer).
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
to tell my eye's truth: the subtle differences i see are different focus (longer distance at the second one) and different exposures - enough to cover the differences in rendering, if there are any.
if you can see differences, those differences do not make it to the examples you show here. still i consider this an interesting result. it tells me: don't bother with gear too much. better put the thoughts into improving pictures!
additional remark: i find this kind of comparison quite helpful, for example to decide which one to purchase, or whether an additional lens may be different enough to justify to get it, too. or for helping to prove that the differences are hardly existing (this i find much more often to be the case than the numerous gear discussions would make assume).
still, there are some lenses on the market that are really different from others of the same FL, for example noctilux, or 1.2 nocton. you can only notice, once this gets "tested". so, once again thanks to those who invest their precious time and present comparisons like this.
by the way ... the picture you took for testing is not as mundane to me as you believe. ;-)
cheers
sebastian
if you can see differences, those differences do not make it to the examples you show here. still i consider this an interesting result. it tells me: don't bother with gear too much. better put the thoughts into improving pictures!
additional remark: i find this kind of comparison quite helpful, for example to decide which one to purchase, or whether an additional lens may be different enough to justify to get it, too. or for helping to prove that the differences are hardly existing (this i find much more often to be the case than the numerous gear discussions would make assume).
still, there are some lenses on the market that are really different from others of the same FL, for example noctilux, or 1.2 nocton. you can only notice, once this gets "tested". so, once again thanks to those who invest their precious time and present comparisons like this.
by the way ... the picture you took for testing is not as mundane to me as you believe. ;-)
cheers
sebastian
Last edited:
oscroft
Veteran
With such small web images it really is impossible to tell (expecting, especially, to be able to see sharpness differences in such tiny photos is naive)
Best,
Best,
bennyng
Benny Ng
My untrained eyes can't tell the difference between the three.
Cheers,
Cheers,
mknawabi
photographeur
I like 3 the most. Most detail, sharpness
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
poor lens test conditions if you ask me, and the images are a bit on the small side. from the 3 images, I can tell the first lens has a bit of vignetting. The second or third lens are probably the best.
bob338
Well-known
okay, maybe the pictures i posted weren't the best examples to compare these lenses. they're a little small(file size) and not exactly the same. at the time, i was trying to get different shots with the three lenses in a fairly short period of time. i'll try it again soon with a tripod and shoot wide open. i didn't use a tripod this time because it's in the closet in the baby's room and he was asleep...
for those interested, the order of lenses is...
#1 is summicron with eyes
#2 is 2.8 summaron(i'm surprised by how many people preferred this one)
#3 is summicron asph(my favorite)
and again, all were taken with the same camera at f5.6 with the same shutter speed within a few seconds of each other.
bob
for those interested, the order of lenses is...
#1 is summicron with eyes
#2 is 2.8 summaron(i'm surprised by how many people preferred this one)
#3 is summicron asph(my favorite)
and again, all were taken with the same camera at f5.6 with the same shutter speed within a few seconds of each other.
bob
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
#3 Asph...IMHO others not close.
aizan
Veteran
can't see much difference, except the middle one is a little softer. then again, these were taken at f5.6....
retnull
Well-known
Several possible conclusions, none of them really supportable from this particular test:
__The Summaron is an unjustly underrated lens.
__At f5.6, any lens will perform well.
__Gear just doesn't matter.
....feel free to choose whichever makes you happy....
__The Summaron is an unjustly underrated lens.
__At f5.6, any lens will perform well.
__Gear just doesn't matter.
....feel free to choose whichever makes you happy....
Damn, I like the Summaron shot best. I don't want to buy one of those, really, I don't.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I agree with Ralph on this one, the Summaron is most pleasing to me.
And I had to buy that damn M2 which of course is the perfect mate for a Summaron.
raid
Dad Photographer
In the 35mm-40mm test done by me [and Roland], we concluded that the Summaron 35/2.8 was a surprise "winner" lens.
bob338
Well-known
i got the summaron in a big gear buy and never really thought much about it until i started using it purely out of boredom. it is now one of my favorite lenses, but in the examples above, i thought the 8 element summicron had nicer contrast and out of focus areas. but overall, the asph is the most pleasant picture to me. the full size files are much more detailed and much easier to see big differences(of which there are plenty,) but i cannot post them like that.
the main reason i did this test was to decide if i want to keep the 8 element summicron. i got it in the mail the other day and i have a week or two to decide. in the other pictures on the roll, i found it to have more detail and contrast than the summaron but the asph still looked most pleasant in most of the pictures. i'm going to try some tri-x with it this week and see what it does with that...
bob