djon
Well-known
Did a simple resolution test yesterday: Nokton 50 1.5 Vs Leica 35 3.5 Vs Canon 35f2.
I used the Nokton as a baseline because it was the most modern (I don't have a modern 35), but my real purpose was to compare the two 35's.
Shot two newspapers taped together the long way on a wall, used a tripod and reflected flash. Used f8, for assumed maximum performance. All lenses wore shades but carelessly I left the UV filter on the Nokton.
Used Fuji Neopan 400, rated 800, processed in my recent usual Emofin. This isn't a high resolution combo because of grain and Emofin's grain dissolving. A better test would be with chrome.
Scanned 4000ppi , Vuescan with Nikon V scanner...no infared (Ice) clean, no grain reduction. All scans looked very flat (my goal) and all were contrast increased in Photoshop from the "0" default to "50" (meaningless number,it looks like moving from paper Grade 1 to Grade 4 or more.
(scans suggested the lenses were all same contrast before I did contrast adjustment)
Printed Epson 2200 black-only on Kirkland (Costco) glossy...perhaps the best of the inkjet glossy( with Moab Kokopelli which may be the same paper)
Canon was faintly sharper than Leica, Leica was sharper than Nokon...edge sharpness is comparable to center sharpness in all (f8).
Quibbles/reflections: Maybe my focus varied, but I was very careful. Maybe Nikon scanner autofocus varied, but I think not...it's reliably very accurate and all were autofocused at the same point in the image and none of the frames was at the end of a strip (which would introduce curvature problems). Certainly the film/chem choice wasn't optimal, but it influenced all of them equally. I think black-only is as sharp as is possible with 2200, and I think this scanning/printing process is sharper than possible with optical enlargement..it's grain-sharp (there's no popcorn grain with Vuescan). Nokton wore a B+W UV filter, as it always will due to the meagre protection of the CV hood...perhaps this affected sharpness...the others didn't wear filters.
I'm surprised that the Nokton didn't soundly beat the two 35s, and this test reconfirmed my impression that the old 35 3.5 Summaron (this one's mint) is a superbly sharp lens (Vs urban legend about it).
I used the Nokton as a baseline because it was the most modern (I don't have a modern 35), but my real purpose was to compare the two 35's.
Shot two newspapers taped together the long way on a wall, used a tripod and reflected flash. Used f8, for assumed maximum performance. All lenses wore shades but carelessly I left the UV filter on the Nokton.
Used Fuji Neopan 400, rated 800, processed in my recent usual Emofin. This isn't a high resolution combo because of grain and Emofin's grain dissolving. A better test would be with chrome.
Scanned 4000ppi , Vuescan with Nikon V scanner...no infared (Ice) clean, no grain reduction. All scans looked very flat (my goal) and all were contrast increased in Photoshop from the "0" default to "50" (meaningless number,it looks like moving from paper Grade 1 to Grade 4 or more.
(scans suggested the lenses were all same contrast before I did contrast adjustment)
Printed Epson 2200 black-only on Kirkland (Costco) glossy...perhaps the best of the inkjet glossy( with Moab Kokopelli which may be the same paper)
Canon was faintly sharper than Leica, Leica was sharper than Nokon...edge sharpness is comparable to center sharpness in all (f8).
Quibbles/reflections: Maybe my focus varied, but I was very careful. Maybe Nikon scanner autofocus varied, but I think not...it's reliably very accurate and all were autofocused at the same point in the image and none of the frames was at the end of a strip (which would introduce curvature problems). Certainly the film/chem choice wasn't optimal, but it influenced all of them equally. I think black-only is as sharp as is possible with 2200, and I think this scanning/printing process is sharper than possible with optical enlargement..it's grain-sharp (there's no popcorn grain with Vuescan). Nokton wore a B+W UV filter, as it always will due to the meagre protection of the CV hood...perhaps this affected sharpness...the others didn't wear filters.
I'm surprised that the Nokton didn't soundly beat the two 35s, and this test reconfirmed my impression that the old 35 3.5 Summaron (this one's mint) is a superbly sharp lens (Vs urban legend about it).
Last edited:
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
Interesting and usefull observations. I've no tests to report but my 3.5 (goggled) Summaron is sharp and of moderate contrast. A reliable performer.
yours
Frank
Interesting and usefull observations. I've no tests to report but my 3.5 (goggled) Summaron is sharp and of moderate contrast. A reliable performer.
yours
Frank
back alley
IMAGES
but the canon was best?!
awright!!
joe
awright!!
joe
richard_l
Well-known
Could just be your sample. From what I've heard, CV's quality control isn't the greatest.djon said:
richard_l
Well-known
Best? Sorry, I didn't catch that. I thought he said Canon was the sharpest.back alley said:
djon
Well-known
I hope some our many-50-shooters make comparisons. ."variability" is too easy an answer, like "creationism" Vs science. That CV's new, I just compared it to 45 and 58 year old lenses!
My test could be improved by multiple sampling with multiple scan focus points, and maybe the B+H filter is a factor.
Bottom line, I'm pretty happy with the performance of all three lenses.
My test could be improved by multiple sampling with multiple scan focus points, and maybe the B+H filter is a factor.
Bottom line, I'm pretty happy with the performance of all three lenses.
richard_l
Well-known
I don't think the idea of sample variation is simplistic. The normal distribution curve is an inescapable aspect of assembly line production. I'm not suggesting that your test was invalid or that your Nocton is defective.djon said:
It's interesting that the Summaron did as well as it did. However, it would have remained my favorite 35mm even if it had been at the bottom of the heap.
The Nocton fans will probably feel similarly. BTW, what is a Canon?
back alley
IMAGES
BTW, what is a Canon?
see the above post marking it the best & the sharpest!!
see the above post marking it the best & the sharpest!!
photodog
Well-known
This is a Canon. Originally made for the Canon 7. Discontinued more than thirty years ago.
richard_l
Well-known
Looks like a good one. I like the way the front lens element is recessed in the barrel so that it doesn't need a hood. A lot of older Nikkor SLR lenses are like that.photodog said:
raid
Dad Photographer
I use a Canon 35mm/1.8 lens, and I find it quite sharp. I'm not sure how my lens differs optically from a Canon 35/2 lens. Yes, the 35/3.5 Summaron is a sharp little lens.
back alley
IMAGES
3 times 35
Joe, what wrist strap is that on the lower right?
back alley
IMAGES
that is one from bj. it is very 'manly', in that it's a bit wider than most and the webbing is a bit thicker than most. the webbing is also very smooth and soft and flexible.
he did a good job.
joe
he did a good job.
joe
I like the way it looks. I have been thinking of getting a nice wrist strap, but am not really impress with what I have seen for sale.
back alley
IMAGES
my favourite is still the one from mclassic.
it is small thin and has the leather wrist collar.
it's the most comfortable and since i had the ends sewn together it hasn't dropped any of my cameras again.
too bad it was a one time deal and they stopped making them.
joe
it is small thin and has the leather wrist collar.
it's the most comfortable and since i had the ends sewn together it hasn't dropped any of my cameras again.
too bad it was a one time deal and they stopped making them.
joe
djon
Well-known
Postulating sample variation isn't simplistic, but unless one has reason to believe variation is prevalent with CV it seems a distraction. It's like postulating a deity in a biology class...serves no useful purpose. While CV is obviously not nearly the mechanical quality of Leica/Canon, there's no reason to assume computer controlled production in 2004/5 is less precise than the handicraft of 1950-1960.
I could as easily postulate that CVs are incredibly identical and that Leicas vary widely (some say that's especially true of Summarons due to haze issues of some/many/rare-examples.
My own worry, in addition to my carelessness about the filter, is more about focus variability between the lenses...they weren't focused on ground glass, after all.
I plan to re-shoot this test using the same lenses as well as my 25CV (my grand total of 4 LTM lenses) AS WELL as my Canon FD 50 3.5 Macro. I think that FD lens would be a better benchmark than the CV because it's a known "ultimate" quantity...sharper than any other lens in my experience (I've used it for a lot of demanding duplicates of sections of slides). The Macro will use my F1, then I'll rewind and shoot the rest with a P...unfortunately I don't have an FD adapter to use for LTM tests. I'll probably use Velvia because I have a few rolls and don't find it usable in the light around here.
I could as easily postulate that CVs are incredibly identical and that Leicas vary widely (some say that's especially true of Summarons due to haze issues of some/many/rare-examples.
My own worry, in addition to my carelessness about the filter, is more about focus variability between the lenses...they weren't focused on ground glass, after all.
I plan to re-shoot this test using the same lenses as well as my 25CV (my grand total of 4 LTM lenses) AS WELL as my Canon FD 50 3.5 Macro. I think that FD lens would be a better benchmark than the CV because it's a known "ultimate" quantity...sharper than any other lens in my experience (I've used it for a lot of demanding duplicates of sections of slides). The Macro will use my F1, then I'll rewind and shoot the rest with a P...unfortunately I don't have an FD adapter to use for LTM tests. I'll probably use Velvia because I have a few rolls and don't find it usable in the light around here.