Summicron 50 and Zeiss 35/2 ZM comparison

[colinh]

Just had a couple of frames to use up and saw this scene of death and decay (on my terrace) so I thought I'd see how these lenses compare.

Normally people compare lenses of the same focal length. So what?

I used a tripod, but my M7 has no self timer (booh hiss) and I couldn't be bothered to find a cable release. Both shots are at f/8. I moved the tripod back to get approximately the same field of view.

Both images have the same film resolution. The film is Acros 100 in Rodinal 1+50 (nominal 10:00 @ 20 C).

Ah, when creating the jpegs, I wasn't fair: ZM is at 98% quality, Summicron at 92%. 🙂

If anyone wants an enlargement of any particular area, let me know.

I'll try this again one day with the magical lens testing film, SPUR Orthopan UR / ADOX CMS 20. And with a cable release. 🙂

First: ZM35/2
Second: Summicron 50/2 (current)

colin

 

[markinlondon]

I think my only conclusion i can draw from this, Colin, is that they're both excellent lenses. The ZM appears to give more contrast overall while the 'cron appears to capture more fine detail. Either one will do admirably.
I always regard this frame of mine as showing me the way to recent 50mm Summicron performance. See my reply to Robert's comment with regard to post processing. Apologies to those who've seen this many times before.

 

[colinh]

I think my only conclusion i can draw from this, Colin, is that they're both excellent lenses. The ZM appears to give more contrast overall while the 'cron appears to capture more fine detail. Either one will do admirably.

Actually, I still don't feel one can really make valid comparisons based on these low resolution jpegs. I have the 40 Mpixel scans (which would be virtually grainless with the SPUR film 🙂 )

I always regard this frame of mine as showing me the way to recent 50mm Summicron performance.

Nice. But I'm sure it's even better in real life.

colin

 

[cnguyen]

It's like Krell vs McIntosh in the audio world. Zeiss look is not accurate but very "romantic" to look at. Leica look is accurate sharp to the point. I got both Planar f2 and Summilux pre-asph 1.4 and love them both. In the audio world if you wnat detail soundings you give up the "musical" soundings. In the photo world if you want your sharpness you loose contrast and vice versa. Have fun !

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Can't tell them apart here, except that the image for the 35mm seems to have a narrower FOV than the one for the 50mm here, which I think is odd.

Can't even tell the difference in highlights or shadows.

Then again, you're right; these differences can only be really discerned with a loupe or 100% scan view.

 

[FrankS]

They are both rendered on my monitor at what, 72dpi?

 

[colinh]

Probably more like 100, Frank 🙂

Can't tell them apart here, except that the image for the 35mm seems to have a narrower FOV than the one for the 50mm here, which I think is odd.

What makes you think that, Gabriel?



Anyway, here are the 100 % crops of the flower. I guess the assessment that they're both pretty good is the one I'd go for.

Nobody want to talk about signatures? 😀

colin

1st ZM 35/2
2nd Summicron 50/2

 

[back alley]

on my monitor, the zeiss pic really hilites the flower on the left and the leica pic shows the hammock on the right to shine much more.
i like both pics but if i had to choose i prefer the zeiss shot.

 

[sebastel]

maybe it is related to the (natural) vignetting of the wide angle lens?

i think, especially the border area is problematic for comparison of different focal lengths, being one of the reasons why it is rarely done.

still very interesting to see.

i only miss the death and decay ... colin, where is it?
or do both lenses work like a well of youth? 🙂

cheers,
sebastian

 

[colinh]

What the comparison mostly shows is the difference between a 35 mm and a 50 mmlens 🙂

The 35 makes foreground objects appear larger in relation to the background. Which is good for the flower, but would be bad, for example, for someone's nose.

I think there's not much point in providing more full resolution crops, in the centre or of the background. The fore- and background were only just within the depth of field markings and so wouldn't be as sharp as the plane inbetween (where there's nothing 🙂 )

Sebastian, indeed the lenses (or rather the B&W film) have somewhat changed the scene. I'd put the flowers outside because to me, they stank 🙁. The hammock, which was a beautiful and wonderful one (and the shop has disappeared) made in Mexico or Brazil has disintegrated), of the two wild vines, one is dead and the other not very happy. In the middle is something called Pfeifenwinde (in German) which got smashed by hail stones and is also very thirsty. And to the left is a real vine which, well, has never done as well as the other one, which you can't see.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with death and decay. 'Tis a necessary counterbalance to growth. And, no matter how bad things get, you at least know that one day, it'll all be gone. 🙂

colin

 

[x-ray]

Your 100% crop shows your film wasn't in focus in your scanner. The grain in the ZM is mushy compared to the Summicron. I don't know what scanner or software but it also appears the scans in the first images have slightly different level settings and curves. Scanning isn't a really good way to do a comparison but here on the forum is unfortunately the only way. The only accurate comparison is direct viewing of the original negs or transparencies.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[colinh]

What you have in your post is:

[IMG]http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=68454&ppuser=4764[/IMG]
 
What it should be is:

[IMG]http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/7075/Flg_HP5_Plus1.jpg[/IMG]

You need the web address of the actual jpeg file. On a Mac I get this by a drag and drop. Don't know about Windows.

Nice shot by the way 🙂


colin

 

[colinh]

Your 100% crop shows your film wasn't in focus in your scanner. The grain in the ZM is mushy compared to the Summicron. I don't know what scanner or software but it also appears the scans in the first images have slightly different level settings and curves. Scanning isn't a really good way to do a comparison but here on the forum is unfortunately the only way. The only accurate comparison is direct viewing of the original negs or transparencies.

Thanks x-ray. I've been wondering about the scanning a while, since there are lots of settings I don't use. I'll make this the subject of another post one day.

Excellently spotted, by the way 🙂

Ummm, I did a teeny weeny curves adjustment in PS to get the images looking more similar from an exposure point of view (to compensate for the scanner deciding the images weren't identical). :angel: 😱 Next time I'll try and fix the exposure settings between scans. Don't know what to do about focus. The film is not absolutely flat in the plastic holder 🙁

colin

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ferider]

You cann't fix different times-of-day/sun-light in PS.

I am wondering about the glow on the table, lower left corner in
the Summicron picture.

Roland.

 

[colinh]

I am wondering about the glow on the table, lower left corner in
the Summicron picture.

Me too. It's either sunlight or a strong radio-active source. I think it's the former. The glow is probably Leica Glow. (it couldn't be flare could it?) I think the lens was clean, don't know if there was a filter on it 😱

colin

 

[x-ray]

Colin:

What scanner are you using? Even my Fuji finescan 5000 prepress scanner makes auto adjustments whether I like it or not. I haven't found a way to get around this in the software. I had am Imacon 343 and the software was about as good as it gets and I don't remember any auto adjustments other than applying profiles.

My solution for scanning for comparison is to scan both negs or transparencies together as one. Then equal auto adjustments are applied. When both have equal treatment then you can do a fair comparison.

 

[colinh]

I have the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Eilte 5400 II (stupid name, but there you go. Not as stupid as *ist though 🙂 )

It's a 35mm only scanner and takes strips of 6 in a plastic holder.

I'm pretty sure I can adjust focus manually, but if the film is not plane - what's the point? I'm also pretty sure I can save settings from one scan to use for another.

What I was wondering is, does one need to adjust the exposure settings manually? I don't let it do any "image improvements".

I used to think that when shooting RAW (digital speak here) it didn't matter what ISO setting you had. Then, thinking about it, it occured to me that what that does is set Vmax for the analogue to digital converter 🙂 (So, yes, it makes a big difference)


colin

 

[x-ray]

Colin:

The Minolta is a good scanner but would guess the holder is lacking. If you can over ride the auto functions and manually focus I would give it a try. When you scan each with no adjustments make the adjustments in photoshop. When you open the second image apply the same settings to it by holding down the ctl and alt keys if on a PC. this will automatically apply the exact same settings from the previous image when you select curves or selcet levels. It's OK to tweek the file but doe exactly the same tweek to both.