Leica - Jupiter - Yashica- Sigma test

[mike_j]

I have been playing with some cross platform tests,not scientifically rigorous but fairly controlled test. It's interesting to see how the lenses, 1-4, stack up:

Jupiter 50mm f2 on M6
Leica summicron v6 50mm f2 on M6
Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX DG on KM 5D digitalSLR
Yashinon f1.7 45mm on Yashica GTN

But not necessarily in that order. To avoid confusion file names beginning L1 are Summicron, L2 are J8, L3 are Yashinon and L4 are DSLR/sigma

Test at f2.8 http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f2.8 test/index.html (no result for Yashinon on Burleigh House shot due to operator error
f5.6 test http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f5.6 test/index.html
f11 test http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f11 test/index.html
Bokeh test http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/bokeh/index.html

Colour variations are partly due to overexposure on f2.8 shots as neither Leica nor Yashica shutter could manage 1/2000 sec required.

Fuji Superia 200 film, minilab processed and scanned. Some shots slightly cropped to adjust field of view. All jpegs reduced to max 1600 pixels though only smaller versions here - I'll upload the bigger pictures if anyone is interested.

Bokeh test at f2.6 focussed on nearest group of blossom, approx 2.5m away from camera.

 

[Joe Mondello]

I just see 4040 Error Not Found messages . . .

 

[rogue_designer]

Corrected links. Same order as above.
http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f2.8 test/index.html
http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f5.6 test/index.html
http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f11 test/index.html
http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/bokeh/index.html

 

[NickTrop]

Hard to draw conclusions from these scans. They all look pretty nice to me. Don't care for the bokeh (or lack thereof) of the Jupiter in the last shot, and it seems to render dark areas darker (not objectionably so) in the other tests. The Jupiter has the most distinctive look but can't say I prefer it - or not, to the others.

What's your opinion, roque_desinger?

Thanks for putting this together. These are always fun to compare.

 

[rogue_designer]

What's your opinion, roque_desinger?

I just corrected the links, and havn't really had a chance to look at them. When I get into the office tomorrow, I'll pull them up on the big calibrated montitor and give them a thorough view.

 

[NickTrop]

Cool. I look forward to that post. Thanks.

 

[mike_j]

Hard to draw conclusions from these scans.

What's your opinion, roque_desinger?

Thanks for putting this together. These are always fun to compare.

I have now uploaded the full files so you can judge better

To avoid confusion file names beginning L1 are Summicron, L2 are J8, L3 are Yashinon and L4 are DSLR/sigma

 

[Krosya]

While I had no doubts about the Cron, J8 comes out to be a very good lens. Me like. hehe.

 

[NickTrop]

Thanks for posting these... Always fun, and always difficult to draw any firm conclusions. First, all images are fine and all lenses performed well. To my eye it's hard to tell the difference between the Summicron and the Yashinon at any aperture, except in the bokeh test where I prefer the Leica. The Jupiter has the most distinct signature but that's not a good or a bad thing, a preference and it certainly holds its own.

The biggest issue is the blandness of the digital images. Yes, they're cleaner but they have that damned "plasticy" look that to me defines digital. Not to get heady but digital images seem almost like photorealistic images rendered by a high-quality 3D imaging package that's very, very close to reality but not quite there.

One of the obvious differences - which drives me nuts with digitals, is what I call "the digital smudge". This is where stone objects get smudged in architecture shots. Guess this has to do with the noise reduction function but it's evident if you look at the last square pattern at the base of the building (the squares with ivy between them at the base) on the f11 shot (or any aperture) thats beneath the drain pipe two inches from your right. You will see, if you know what I'm referencing, it lacks the sharpness and "stone" characteristic of the shots taken on film. It look like someone took their finger and smeared out the detail.

Also, why is the lower left grassy area underneat the tree on the river(?) shot (the first set) so much darker and lacking detail than the film camera shots? There doesn't appear to be any clouds in the sky.

Again, thanks for posting. Mainly what this test does is reaffirm my fondness for film over digital, and the great value of the "lesser" Yashinon and KMZ glass.