sanmich
Veteran
lately, I was thinking of using my Nikons for landscapes.
Sharpness is clearly an important factor, and I wanted to check if the common wisdom that "all modern 50mm lenses are excellent, and stopped down are about the same".
Well, I was a bit disappointed:
I tested two Nikkor 50mm f/2 (non AI and AI) which are really excellent.
the results are that a collapsible summicron 30 years older is still visibly better, even at f/4. I tested this on film, and then (to neutralize the camera calibration factor) on a GH2.
On film, at f/4 the summicron gives a crispiness that is not there with the Nikkor, and on the GH2, a very quick test shows that at f/2 the cron runs circles around the nikkor.
I have to admit that I am a bit surprised. I thought that RF lenses shine at wide angles when non retro-focus deesigns are possible, but it appears that it's not that simple.
(and I bought myself a micro-nikkor for the landscapes
)
Sharpness is clearly an important factor, and I wanted to check if the common wisdom that "all modern 50mm lenses are excellent, and stopped down are about the same".
Well, I was a bit disappointed:
I tested two Nikkor 50mm f/2 (non AI and AI) which are really excellent.
the results are that a collapsible summicron 30 years older is still visibly better, even at f/4. I tested this on film, and then (to neutralize the camera calibration factor) on a GH2.
On film, at f/4 the summicron gives a crispiness that is not there with the Nikkor, and on the GH2, a very quick test shows that at f/2 the cron runs circles around the nikkor.
I have to admit that I am a bit surprised. I thought that RF lenses shine at wide angles when non retro-focus deesigns are possible, but it appears that it's not that simple.
(and I bought myself a micro-nikkor for the landscapes
)
mfogiel
Veteran
Last time, that I did a lens comparison, it was between the Makro Planar 50/2 F and a Nikkor 50/1.4 AFD. The MP was sharper wide open, than the Nikkor at f 4.0, however after f 5.6 there was little visible difference. If you want top sharpness you should probably consider the latest Nikon lenses, or get the Zeiss. BTW, on medium speed film, it was difficult to see any difference between the MP 50 and Planar 50 ZM. If you are after B&W, in my opinion you should get DR or rigid Summicron. if colour, the Planar ZM.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Why are you using a 50mm for landscapes? If you want to photograph landscapes with a Nikon slr (film) the preferable lenses are the 24 and 28m Ai-s. I have the 24mm f2.8 Ai-S and it works fine. For a 50mm lens on Nikon film cameras the 50mm f1.4 Ai-s 6th and last version is the best. With a rangefinder if I am shoot wide angle I use the Zeiss 28mm f2.8. There is some distortion in the corners. It performs as well or better than the older Leica 28mm's but probably not as good as the newer asphs.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or 85, 105, 135 and even 200. I've aways found landscape vastly easier with longer lenses than with wide-angles.
O course a lot depends on where you shoot your landscapes, but why do you suppose Leica called the 105/6.3 the 'Mountain Elmar'?
Cheers,
R.
eric rose
ummmmm, filmmmm
I agree with Roger. Some of my best 35mm landscapes have been taken at 85mm. Generally rookies gravitate to WA's for landscapes well before they have mastered how to use them effectively. Starting off with a 50mm is a great way to work into other focal lengths.
sanmich
Veteran
The 50 would still be my first choice for landscapes.
I quickly tested my nikkor 85mm against a Hexanon 90mm, and again, the RF lens was better, this time by huge margin.
That was one test of one sample of each lens, so I didn't feel it to be as conclusive as the 50 test I did (In fact I tested about 5 Nikkors, all f/2 and f/1.8, and two leicas, collapsible and DR)
I have a very good wide (28 AIS) that I will soon test against my RF 28's (Hex and VC 3.5).
I still wonder why the SLR choices don't seem to be on par with RF equivalent, even when we exclude leica's top of the line.
I quickly tested my nikkor 85mm against a Hexanon 90mm, and again, the RF lens was better, this time by huge margin.
That was one test of one sample of each lens, so I didn't feel it to be as conclusive as the 50 test I did (In fact I tested about 5 Nikkors, all f/2 and f/1.8, and two leicas, collapsible and DR)
I have a very good wide (28 AIS) that I will soon test against my RF 28's (Hex and VC 3.5).
I still wonder why the SLR choices don't seem to be on par with RF equivalent, even when we exclude leica's top of the line.
telenous
Well-known
Probably you 've tried that already, but did you lock the mirror of the SLR? Or shoot faster than, say, 1/250s? Mirror vibration in older SLRs could be a factor in loss of exacting detail.
.
.
sanmich
Veteran
the Micro nikkor is on it's way. I shall update...
I tested on film at 1/500 or 1/1000, and I took several shots of each.
Also, on the GH2, I didn't even shoot anything, just looked at the apparent sharpness.
I don't see a real reason why this is so, and I would love it to be different, but I am now convinced that no Nikkor 50 (except perhaps the Micro Nikkor offers) can beat a good RF lens.
Remember that more recent versions of the summicron (not even talking of the DR/rigid here) are supposed to be sharper than the coll Summicron, and that's my observation too. So really, I feel the regular Nikkor offerings cannot really compete on this parameter.
I tested on film at 1/500 or 1/1000, and I took several shots of each.
Also, on the GH2, I didn't even shoot anything, just looked at the apparent sharpness.
I don't see a real reason why this is so, and I would love it to be different, but I am now convinced that no Nikkor 50 (except perhaps the Micro Nikkor offers) can beat a good RF lens.
Remember that more recent versions of the summicron (not even talking of the DR/rigid here) are supposed to be sharper than the coll Summicron, and that's my observation too. So really, I feel the regular Nikkor offerings cannot really compete on this parameter.
kokoshawnuff
Alex
+1
I've never really understood the concept behind wides and super wides for typical landscapes. I understand wides if the important part of your image is the foreground, but not, if say, you are taking a photo of a mountain.
That said I tend to have results similar to op in that my RF lenses are "sharper" than my equivalent SLR lenses (comparing a summicron 50 or ZM planar 50 to my Zeiss ZE Makro 50)
BobYIL
Well-known
Zeiss claims the highest resolution achieved by ZM lenses is about 400 line pairs/mm (25 Biogon, I too see it's fantastic) whereas the same limit for ZF, ZE is about 300 lp/mm (25/2.0 Distagon, 50 & 100 M-Planars reach the resolution limits of recent sensors).
With conventional films, I doubt we can detect some resolution differences amongst top lenses of various brands except Zeiss is renown for designing their smaller format lenses for higher microcontrast which to appear as slightly better edge-sharpness. When I compare the Zeiss lenses in hand against the Leica ones, the typical Zeiss "crispness" is to be observed not only with the ZM-ones but also with some old G-lenses not so known for sharpness, for instance the G28 Biogon or G90 Sonnar. BTW, nobody should be deceived with the MTF curves of the ZM Planar 50; it is sharper than the last formula Summicron 50 (although the curves tell just the opposite.)
These days I have tested some of my vintage Nikons (AI-, AI-S) against some new 1.8G lenses (28, 50 and 85) on the D800E. The age shows itself... all are '59 DeSoto, except the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. BTW, I am looking forward to receiving the Leica-R to Nikon adapters to test my R lenses on the D800E. Probably only the Macro-Elmarit 60 would stand such comparison..
With conventional films, I doubt we can detect some resolution differences amongst top lenses of various brands except Zeiss is renown for designing their smaller format lenses for higher microcontrast which to appear as slightly better edge-sharpness. When I compare the Zeiss lenses in hand against the Leica ones, the typical Zeiss "crispness" is to be observed not only with the ZM-ones but also with some old G-lenses not so known for sharpness, for instance the G28 Biogon or G90 Sonnar. BTW, nobody should be deceived with the MTF curves of the ZM Planar 50; it is sharper than the last formula Summicron 50 (although the curves tell just the opposite.)
These days I have tested some of my vintage Nikons (AI-, AI-S) against some new 1.8G lenses (28, 50 and 85) on the D800E. The age shows itself... all are '59 DeSoto
, except the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. BTW, I am looking forward to receiving the Leica-R to Nikon adapters to test my R lenses on the D800E. Probably only the Macro-Elmarit 60 would stand such comparison..
sanmich
Veteran
Follow up:
This weekend I tested my Nikkor 28mm AIS vs my CV 28mm f/3.5.
This time the results are opposite:
at full aperture (2.8/3.5) the Nikkor is clearly sharper.
By 5.6, I couldn't see any difference.
All tested on GH2 in live view.
Still, I love the CV for its size, and since I don't usually use it fully open or for work for which sharpness is paramount, this small weakness doesn't bother me.
Also, the nikkor can flare at times, but I'm happy to have it for the occasional landscape shot...
This weekend I tested my Nikkor 28mm AIS vs my CV 28mm f/3.5.
This time the results are opposite:
at full aperture (2.8/3.5) the Nikkor is clearly sharper.
By 5.6, I couldn't see any difference.
All tested on GH2 in live view.
Still, I love the CV for its size, and since I don't usually use it fully open or for work for which sharpness is paramount, this small weakness doesn't bother me.
Also, the nikkor can flare at times, but I'm happy to have it for the occasional landscape shot...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Tested in what way? Testing for sharpness requires a test method that eliminates focus errors - professional test methods entirely bypass camera finders and film planarity issues, e.g. by directly inspecting the aerial image with a microscope.
sanmich
Veteran
Well, this was a totally unprofessional test.
Yet, since it was on live view, it has the advantage of neutralizing the focus inaccuracies induced by the camera itself (RF calibration for RF camera and screen position for SLR).
Yet, since it was on live view, it has the advantage of neutralizing the focus inaccuracies induced by the camera itself (RF calibration for RF camera and screen position for SLR).
leicapixie
Well-known
Last week i ran some film thru my well used as a shield, Nikon-F with the very sharp 55mmf3.5 Micro lens and my tattered Leica M3 with collapsible 50mm Summicron(1954). Used Fuji 200ISO. Well i was also surprised to see not only how much sharper the RF was but the many more shades of colors.. The Nikon is contrastier giving a feeling of more sharpness. Digital also has this..it seems sharper, to me, than film.
i personally think using wide angles for landscape a very silly idea. i prefer longer. Rather than carry many lenses, which i cannot anymore, i make life easier by carrying only the "normal" lens. Sometimes i even bring an extra roll. Oh! i never ever carry two such different cameras at same time! This was one of many exceptions.
i personally think using wide angles for landscape a very silly idea. i prefer longer. Rather than carry many lenses, which i cannot anymore, i make life easier by carrying only the "normal" lens. Sometimes i even bring an extra roll. Oh! i never ever carry two such different cameras at same time! This was one of many exceptions.
Contarama
Well-known
That is what I was gonna say - have you tested a known "sharp" Nikkor like the 28/2.8 Ais...in my opinion there are only a handful of truly great old Nikkor lenses. On another note I have heard the 50/1.8 Nikkor is probably the sharpest of the 50's.
Robert Lai
Well-known
In my experience, the Nikkor F lenses seem to have lower contrast than the RF lenses, especially wide open. I have a Nikkor 50 f/2 non AI, and the 50 1.8 AI. Both are a bit soft wide open. I gave up the Nikkor 50 1.4 and 1.2 AIS due to their (for me) extreme amounts of barrel distortion. My Summicrons (collapsible, and the last non-ASPH version with the pull-out hood) beat them wide open. Yet, the Nikon images are attractive in their own right. Certainly, many pros have made a good living shooting these "inferior" Nikkors. By f/4 or smaller apertures, almost all lenses are alike, except for the distortion.
The Nikons excel at macro (I have Micro Nikkor 55 2.8, 60 2.8, 70-180 Micro), and at telephoto ranges.
Wide angle is the realm of the RF. Certain lenses, such as the AIS 28 2.8 Nikkor are the exception, with no distortion. Otherwise, the wide Nikkors all have barrel distortion.
The Nikons excel at macro (I have Micro Nikkor 55 2.8, 60 2.8, 70-180 Micro), and at telephoto ranges.
Wide angle is the realm of the RF. Certain lenses, such as the AIS 28 2.8 Nikkor are the exception, with no distortion. Otherwise, the wide Nikkors all have barrel distortion.
sanmich
Veteran
That's what I wanted to test in the first place, and I was surprised that this is not the case. At f/4, the 50 f/2 Nikkor is still softer than the venerable collapsible Summicron. (see my OP...)
Moriturii
Well-known
NO!
Do not spread misinformation about things you have no idea about. If you think "you use a wide-angle lens if you want to shoot landscapes" then you don't even know THE most fundamental basic things about photography in general, and you might want to go back to studying your A B C's, let alone tell others what to do.
1) Re-read what Roger Hicks said.
2) http://youtu.be/7Iby7p7BN-k?t=27s
Using wide-angle lenses for landscape became most popular in modern times (I think), and it's quickly got utterly boring for me personally.
nobbylon
Veteran
If that's the case I'd say you have bad copies of the lens. Why are you compairing them wide open for landscape shots anyway?
It would be better to test them at the optimum aperture for maximum detail.
The 50 f2 Nikkor is an amazing lens and at approx 30-40 euro can equal the quality from any 50 available. I compaired my copy to various Summicron R and M's plus a 50 Summilux and it easily held it's own. Shot wide open no but at 2.8 on it was oof smoothness where the differences lie and my favorite from them all ended up being the v1 Summicron R.
As an aside, 3 different copies of the cult 28 AIS were no better wide open than my 24-70 2.8 at the same focal length. Ok the 28 was smaller and could focus closer but then it can't go to 70mm or open up to 24
Erik van Straten
Veteran
For many years, from 1973 until 1979, I worked only with a Nikkormat and the lenses 24mmf/2.8, 50mmf/2 and 105mmf/2.5.
Then, one day, I bought a Leica M3 with a rigid Summicron 50/2. I was blown away by the images the Leica produced, much and much sharper than the Nikkor 50mm, notably at full aperture.
Also the out-of-focus backgrounds were much more beautiful, with perfect round and oval specular highlights. On the pictures with the Nikkormat those unsharp highlights in the background were not perfecly round or oval, but were cut-off by the mirror-housing.
So: rangefinder lenses and cameras are far superior.
Erik.
Then, one day, I bought a Leica M3 with a rigid Summicron 50/2. I was blown away by the images the Leica produced, much and much sharper than the Nikkor 50mm, notably at full aperture.
Also the out-of-focus backgrounds were much more beautiful, with perfect round and oval specular highlights. On the pictures with the Nikkormat those unsharp highlights in the background were not perfecly round or oval, but were cut-off by the mirror-housing.
So: rangefinder lenses and cameras are far superior.
Erik.