Nine M Mount lenses compared at 1m and wide open

S

StuartR

Guest
I just posted this at the Leica forum, but I figured you guys here might appreciate it as well (or more...):

Hello all, I was finishing up a roll yesterday and I decided to do a quick comparison of a bunch of M mount lenses I have and how they perform up close and at their maximum apertures. It is a quick and dirty test, certainly not meant to be the be all and end all of tets, but I thought it might be interesting to compare. If nothing else, it should give an idea how similar (and how good) most M mount lenses are, and how they differ as tools. Hopefully somebody finds it helpful. I may get around to posting the 100% crops, so stay tuned. Here is the link:

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/cuwo.htm

The lenses were: 50mm summilux ASPH, 50mm cron (latest), 50mm collapsible 'cron, 50mm f/1.2 M-Hexanon Limited, 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH, 35mm f/1.8 Canon LTM, 75mm f/1.4 Summilux, 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit M (thin), 100mm f/3.5 Canon LTM.
 
Thanks for taking the time to do the tests and write them up. Very interesting. Most delightful is how well the Canon and Hexanon fared. There's hope for those of us unable to fund modern Leica equipment.
 
Here are some 100% crops. Remember that each lens is at its max aperture, not stopped down, so that means the Konica is at 1.2, the Summilux at 1.4 and the Summicron Collapsible at f/2.
These are all crops from 4800 dpi scans on a minolta scan multi pro.

Konica Hexanon Limited
bt-50hexanon-limited-crop.jpg


Summilux ASPH
bt-50asph-crop.jpg


Summicron Collapsible
bt-50collapsible-crop.jpg
 
It seems to me that the Summilux ASPH has the edge -- beating both the other lenses. It is better at 1.4 than the summicron collapsible at f/2.

Also notice the glowy softness of the Hexanon image. I think this is what gives it such a nice character in portraits. Just a slight softness in the fine detail.
 
Not that I'm in the market (given my stranded cash flow), but if I were this comparison would make me want to try either the Konica 50/1.2 you tested or the Canon 50/1.4, or even the Canon 50/1.2.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with older glass

Nothing wrong with older glass

This will ruffel a lot of folks but i've said for years that there's no magic in Leitz or Zeiss glass or for that matter any one elses. Not every manufacturer makes every focal length and design of lens the best. Each maker has a particular lens or lenses that excell in the market. The 50 summicron M, Zeiss Macro Planar 120mm canons 200 1.8, 85 1.2, nikkor 105 2.5 and etc. There are plenty of great lenses out there that don't carry the Leitz name. Leitz and Zeiss have made their share of duds. Over the years I've found particular lenses that I like better than others and that's what I've stuck with. I have no intention of trading even my sixties vintage glass for the latest.
 
Very nice to see. However, these lenses were not designed to give their best performance at 1m. It would be interesting to repeat the test at say 15 m and compare it to this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom