bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I appreciated everyone's feedback from the original thread I started regarding this 50mm lens test. The testing proved to be much more time-consuming and difficult than I originally imagined.
It is exceedingly difficult to maintain correct focus plane, frame alignment, etc. even when using Live View.
Based on the input I received from the previous testing, I re-did the test today (my wife always says I'm a bit obsessive) and tried to compensate for more variables.
---
Objective (no pun intended):
To test the center and corner performance of various 50mm prime lenses.
Methodology:
1. Leica M 240 (latest firmware) on tripod ~ 1.0 meter from test plane
2. original files DNG uncompressed, converted to best-quality JPEG in Adobe Elements
3. White balance manually sampled
4. two second timer used to reduce image blur
5. in-camera lens profile chosen as 50mm F2.8 for all lenses
6. multiple Live View focus samples taken for each lens in order to improve focal accuracy
Lenses used:
1. Canon 50mm F1.4 "Japanese Summilux"
2. Helios-103 53mm F1.8
3. Jupiter-3 50mm F1.5
4. Jupiter-8 50mm F2
5. Industar-50 50mm F3.5
6. Industar-61 L/D 55mm F2.8
7. Olympus 50mm F1.8 (Fotodiox adapter)
8. Olympus 50mm F1.2 (Fotodiox adapter)
9. Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar 50mm F1.5 (Contax adapter)
10. Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2 v5
Whew! I think that's it.
It is exceedingly difficult to maintain correct focus plane, frame alignment, etc. even when using Live View.
Based on the input I received from the previous testing, I re-did the test today (my wife always says I'm a bit obsessive) and tried to compensate for more variables.
---
Objective (no pun intended):
To test the center and corner performance of various 50mm prime lenses.
Methodology:
1. Leica M 240 (latest firmware) on tripod ~ 1.0 meter from test plane
2. original files DNG uncompressed, converted to best-quality JPEG in Adobe Elements
3. White balance manually sampled
4. two second timer used to reduce image blur
5. in-camera lens profile chosen as 50mm F2.8 for all lenses
6. multiple Live View focus samples taken for each lens in order to improve focal accuracy
Lenses used:
1. Canon 50mm F1.4 "Japanese Summilux"
2. Helios-103 53mm F1.8
3. Jupiter-3 50mm F1.5
4. Jupiter-8 50mm F2
5. Industar-50 50mm F3.5
6. Industar-61 L/D 55mm F2.8
7. Olympus 50mm F1.8 (Fotodiox adapter)
8. Olympus 50mm F1.2 (Fotodiox adapter)
9. Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar 50mm F1.5 (Contax adapter)
10. Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2 v5
Whew! I think that's it.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
First: the overall scene. Taken with Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2 v5 at F8
Fotohuis
Well-known
7. Industar-61, should be F/2,8 I think .....
Maybe you should add a Siemens Star in your test set. If you want I can sent you one by e-mail.
Maybe you should add a Siemens Star in your test set. If you want I can sent you one by e-mail.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
1. Canon 50mm F1.4 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
2. CZ Opton Sonnar at F2.8, 100% center crop:
3. Olympus 50mm F1.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
4. Olympus 50mm F1.2 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
5. Jupiter-8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
6. Jupiter-3 50mm F1.5 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
7. Industar-61 L/D 55mm F2.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
8. Industar-50 50mm F3.5 at F3.5, 100% center crop:
9. Helios-103 53mm F1.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
10. Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2 v5 at F2.8:
2. CZ Opton Sonnar at F2.8, 100% center crop:
3. Olympus 50mm F1.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
4. Olympus 50mm F1.2 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
5. Jupiter-8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
6. Jupiter-3 50mm F1.5 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
7. Industar-61 L/D 55mm F2.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
8. Industar-50 50mm F3.5 at F3.5, 100% center crop:
9. Helios-103 53mm F1.8 at F2.8, 100% center crop:
10. Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2 v5 at F2.8:
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I will appreciate it if you can refocus on an object in the corner, e.g the monkey's face, after shots taken with focus in the center. I hope it's not too hard to do with Live View, and the framing don't need to be changed. In this case it would compare the real corner sharpness at large aperture, without the disturbing from DOF. The results will be interesting.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Thank you for the I-61, I made the correction.
A Siemens star would be nice, maybe we can exchange info with private message?
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
CORNER EXAMPLES, upper left at 100%. All images shot at F2.8, DNG conversion to JPEG at maximum quality.
1. Canon 50mm F1.4
2. Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar
3. Olympus 50mm F1.8
4. Olympus 50mm F1.2
5. Jupiter-8
6. Jupiter-3
7. Industar-61 L/D
8. Industar-50
9. Helios-103
10. Leica Summicron 50/2
1. Canon 50mm F1.4
2. Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar
3. Olympus 50mm F1.8
4. Olympus 50mm F1.2
5. Jupiter-8
6. Jupiter-3
7. Industar-61 L/D
8. Industar-50
9. Helios-103
10. Leica Summicron 50/2
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
FWIW here are a few more details about my testing methods:
1. Light source was consistent for all photos, I used a daylight fluorescent lamp positioned about 60 centimeters (~ 2 feet) to the upper right of the plywood.
2. The Jupiter-8 I tested is a chrome version from 1957. I have a later black J-8 but I didn't bother to test it.
3. I also tested an Industar-26 "Red P" lens, and found it performed very similar to the Industar-61 L/D, there were no significant differences -- so I did not include it in the posting.
4. The Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar is from my Contax IIa, it is a post-WW II lens but I am not sure what year.
5. All the JPEGs were uploaded to Flickr's servers at best quality. Flickr probably uses some compression but the overall JPEG quality is good.
1. Light source was consistent for all photos, I used a daylight fluorescent lamp positioned about 60 centimeters (~ 2 feet) to the upper right of the plywood.
2. The Jupiter-8 I tested is a chrome version from 1957. I have a later black J-8 but I didn't bother to test it.
3. I also tested an Industar-26 "Red P" lens, and found it performed very similar to the Industar-61 L/D, there were no significant differences -- so I did not include it in the posting.
4. The Carl Zeiss Opton / Sonnar is from my Contax IIa, it is a post-WW II lens but I am not sure what year.
5. All the JPEGs were uploaded to Flickr's servers at best quality. Flickr probably uses some compression but the overall JPEG quality is good.
Robert Lai
Well-known
The Olympus lenses, the Industar 61, and of course the Summicron are really great. The corner is where the most differences are noted.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Indeed, right conclusion. Increadible about that I-61 lens. In my test: The same. 
Maybe somebody has the internal lens configuration about this Industar lens. I would be interested in it.
Maybe somebody has the internal lens configuration about this Industar lens. I would be interested in it.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I downloaded these simple blue prints from zenitcamera.com a while ago. It doesn't show any technical details but only gives you a clue.
I'm a layman about optics but the Industar-61 looks different from the older brothers.
It's said to be the third recalculated of Industar-22, based on the Tessar. 26 and 50 being the first and second recalculation.
I personally exchanged the front and rear elements/group between I-22 and I-50 in an experiment, but the reckless breeding didn't lead to bad results, everything stayed as sharp.
I'm a layman about optics but the Industar-61 looks different from the older brothers.
It's said to be the third recalculated of Industar-22, based on the Tessar. 26 and 50 being the first and second recalculation.
I personally exchanged the front and rear elements/group between I-22 and I-50 in an experiment, but the reckless breeding didn't lead to bad results, everything stayed as sharp.
Attachments
Fotohuis
Well-known
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Not only the shape of the elements but also the type of glass is important for the end result. Please note that different from the other Industars and Jupiters the L/D 61 has lanthanum glass (like the first summicrons). Lenses with this glass would provide better results @ wider f-stop settings (refractive index)
Fotohuis
Well-known
Well the L stands for Lanthanium and the D for LTM. My 1990 I-61 L/D was much worse then my I-61 (Zebra 1966) but it has to do with a crappy production. So maybe a 1970 model I-61 L/D should be slightly better. What I have seen and feel myself I won't buy anything more FSU materials after approx. 1980.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I also have both the L/D version and none L/D version ("Zebra"). L/D is from 90s and zebra from 80s. I had a 70s Zebra but gave it to my father with a FED-3. I couldn't tell the difference between those three lenses. They are as good, or as bad . They are my least used lenses, I gave more love to J-8, J-3, as well as I-22 and I-50.
. They are my least used lenses, I gave more love to J-8, J-3, as well as I-22 and I-50.goamules
Well-known
If I wasn't so invested in LTM Canon, Nikkor, and some Leica glass, I'd be looking at Olympus. But I do use their Pen-F lenses, and they are better than some cult 35mm Leica and Canon glass.
I had an Industar 61 for a few years. VERY good lens, just the basic zebra one. A Russian friend saw it on my canon camera in France, and said "those aren't considered very good Soviet lenses....you need to get a Jupiter...." I asked if he'd SEEN the results? Very sharp and contrasty.
I had an Industar 61 for a few years. VERY good lens, just the basic zebra one. A Russian friend saw it on my canon camera in France, and said "those aren't considered very good Soviet lenses....you need to get a Jupiter...." I asked if he'd SEEN the results? Very sharp and contrasty.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I respect OP for his time and effort. Every time I'm trying to test even single lens it isn't easy at all.
Just one comment about tests like this.
If I ever own M240 or even digital cropper which is capable of LTM-M, I would never use FSU or any film era lens on it. I wouldn't even bother to test them.
Why? Because it gives crap. And it is proven one more time here.
Wanna use film lenses, use them on film or don't use them at all.
FSU lens on digital cameras shows nothing relevant to me as FED-2 shoter for thirty+ years.
Cheers, Ko.
Just one comment about tests like this.
If I ever own M240 or even digital cropper which is capable of LTM-M, I would never use FSU or any film era lens on it. I wouldn't even bother to test them.
Why? Because it gives crap. And it is proven one more time here.
Wanna use film lenses, use them on film or don't use them at all.
FSU lens on digital cameras shows nothing relevant to me as FED-2 shoter for thirty+ years.
Cheers, Ko.
goamules
Well-known
Too bad he didn't compare a couple of the modern lenses you are advocating. Because since he didn't, your statement is just subjective conjecture.
Yes, some of the older lenses will not be "cell phone perfect". They may have lower contrast (smoother tones), or less resolution (portrait softness), or other attributes an artistic photographer may like. Because some of us shoot for a certain look, not for absolute, pixel peeping (what we are doing here) perfection. For that, you can use a cell phone or a copy camera. Which is what the industry used to photograph small print hanging on a wall. Not rangefinders like in this test.
I for one like old lenses. I like a unique look in my lenses. I'm not into chasing high contrast and lines per MM. Because I shoot light, tones, and things larger than a fraction of a mm. A good photographer could take fantastic photos with any of these lenses. But a scientific print operation may not be able to make plate ready copy with one of them.
Yes, some of the older lenses will not be "cell phone perfect". They may have lower contrast (smoother tones), or less resolution (portrait softness), or other attributes an artistic photographer may like. Because some of us shoot for a certain look, not for absolute, pixel peeping (what we are doing here) perfection. For that, you can use a cell phone or a copy camera. Which is what the industry used to photograph small print hanging on a wall. Not rangefinders like in this test.
I for one like old lenses. I like a unique look in my lenses. I'm not into chasing high contrast and lines per MM. Because I shoot light, tones, and things larger than a fraction of a mm. A good photographer could take fantastic photos with any of these lenses. But a scientific print operation may not be able to make plate ready copy with one of them.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
FWIW I actually tested two additional modern lenses as well. I tested a Konica Hexanon-M 50/2, and a Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH. Their performance was virtually indistinguishable from the Summicron, at least at close range. Subjectively I'd say they were both 98.5% as good as the Summicron. I didn't see much point in posting the results because they were so similar.
Modern lens formulas have managed to compensate for a multitude of challenges. Lens technology has improved by orders of magnitude. I commonly find that the resolving power of the Summicron exceeds what the M 240's sensor can handle. If I won the lotto, I don't think I'd even bother getting the 50 APO. The Summicron is THAT good.
Again, I did this test for fun -- mainly to see what the character of these vintage lenses is like. Sometimes I try out FSU lenses during my daily walks. It's never the equipment, it's always the eye behind the camera that makes the photo.
Here's an example from earlier in the summer. Jupiter-8 on my M 240. Nothing wrong with this photo.
Modern lens formulas have managed to compensate for a multitude of challenges. Lens technology has improved by orders of magnitude. I commonly find that the resolving power of the Summicron exceeds what the M 240's sensor can handle. If I won the lotto, I don't think I'd even bother getting the 50 APO. The Summicron is THAT good.
Again, I did this test for fun -- mainly to see what the character of these vintage lenses is like. Sometimes I try out FSU lenses during my daily walks. It's never the equipment, it's always the eye behind the camera that makes the photo.
Here's an example from earlier in the summer. Jupiter-8 on my M 240. Nothing wrong with this photo.