Leica LTM Summitar vs Jupiter-8

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Thanks everyone for reading and chiming in. Yes, #1 = Jupiter-8, and #2= Summitar. As Brian Legge pointed out, I've probably missed focusing on one or both samples, due to my being close to the minimum focusing distance, and shooting wide open at f/2, with a subject that's not a test chart or a mannequin :)

Brian Sweeney: I'd love to see a Summarit vs. Jupiter-3 comparison, or even a fun comparison of any two similar lenses!
 
So, the take-away from this is?

IMO, it looks to be so similar as to think that any real differences in these two photos is nil.:p
 
To avoid working this morning, I have spent some time looking at these two photos. I agree with Dave that the main differences are small, and as the OP and others suggest can be chalked up to small differences in focussing distance.

One thing I noticed that was not commented on - the Summitar seems to better resolve objects in the OOF region. For example, I can clearly make out coffee cups in the upper right in #2 that are indistinct blurs in #1. Would that hold up in general, or is it an "artifact" of this particular scene?

Randy
 
Be careful what you wish for! But unfortunately, for convenience's sake, they may have to be shot on Stupid Digital :p
 
50mm Shootout!

50mm Shootout!

Ok, here's my big "50mm shootout" (plus others). Mind you, they're mounted on my Olympus E-PL2 (cheaper to test with than processing another roll of Sensia), so the angle of view is that of a short tele, but the rendering characteristics should still be very much 50mm.

The lenses were all mounted on the camera on fixed tripod position. Tungsten white balance, straight-from-camera jpeg. I focused (manually, of course) on the low "E" string, on the bottom-left tuning post (ie: the string windings). I hope this test shows both the in-focus and out-of-focus characteristics of each lens. I tested the Summitar, the Jupiter-8, as well as my F-Mount Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AIS. For fun, I shot my Pentax Auto-110 50mm f/2.8 lens, both wide open and with a homemade aperture disc giving an approximate f/4. Lastly, I included a shot of the Olympus kit zoom mkII @ 42mm f/5.6 (wide open at longest end)

Summitar @ f/2


summitar f2 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Summitar at f/2.8:


summitar f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Summitar @ f/4


summitar f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @f/2


jupiter-8 f2 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @f/2.8


jupiter-8 f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Jupiter-8 @ f/4


jupiter-8 f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @f/1.8


nikkor ais f1.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @ f/2.8


nikkor ais f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Nikkor @ f/4


nikkor ais f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Pentax Auto-110 @f/2.8


pentax auto-110 f2.8 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Pentax Auto-110 @ approx f/4


pentax auto-110 f4 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr

Olympus Kit Zoom @ 42mm f/5.6


Olympus kit lens 42mm f5.6 by khoa_sus2, on Flickr
 
I think the skin tones give the game away in the original two photographs. The Summitar renders a more 3d image with more rounded modelling in the face, the Jupiter by comparison is flat.

Steve
 
I think the most apparent flaw is that the Jupiter lacks resolution in the mans facial hair. It's so soft, that nothing appears to be in focus.

Then there's the OOF highlights to the right, in the yellow/orange areas, which the Leica renders 'swirly', whereas the Jupiter gives round highlights.

EDIT: on a second look: The Jupiter back focuses. The shirt seems to be in focus :)
 
Used for real photography*, rather than test shots, I've never noticed any difference on M's or the CL or the FEDs and Zorkis.

If this was made a sticky, it might save us all a lot of typing.

Regards, David

* Friends and family or people and places...
 
I've always noticed when it's my Summitar and when it's my Jupiter-8, when shot wide open.

Stopped down, when everything else is equal (i.e. how clean the lens is, same shooter, same film/sensor, lighting conditions, etc.), you'd be hard-pressed to see a difference, unless, of course, you're really adept at seeing the differences.
 
David Hughes said:
Used for real photography*, rather than test shots, I've never noticed any difference on M's or the CL or the FEDs and Zorkis.

If this was made a sticky, it might save us all a lot of typing.

Regards, David

* Friends and family or people and places...
Click to expand...


Yes, I appreciate this -- they're both 50mm f/2 lenses, after all, and my original two shots (of a person, in an Actual Real Setting) were pretty damn similar, save for some out-of-focus-area rendering.

I just hope you're not insinuating that I don't do "real photography" as opposed to test shots because I had an hour to kill on a cold and freezing-rainy Montreal night ;)
 
@Jockos: Yes, I noticed on the E-PL2 that the Jupiter is a b*tch to focus wide open at close distances. I also may have "missed" when I was shooting in the café (since DOF is razor-thin at that distance, and people don't stay as still as guitar headstocks!)

@Gabriel: walking around using the "f/8 and be there" adage, I don't tend to notice any differences either. BTW I do quite admire your work on flickr.
 
ktran said:
@Jockos: Yes, I noticed on the E-PL2 that the Jupiter is a b*tch to focus wide open at close distances. I also may have "missed" when I was shooting in the café (since DOF is razor-thin at that distance, and people don't stay as still as guitar headstocks!)
Click to expand...
Unless it's shimmed it's "supposed" to backfocus on a Leica, since the Leicas doesn't have the same flange distance as the FED/Zorki.
 
Okay, so Patrick sent me a J8 which seems to be quite nice when mounted on the M3. He says I need to get it shimmed. Couple of questions:

1. If I shoot a few frames with it, what would I expect non-shimmed?
2. Who can shim this lens for me?:)
 
dave lackey said:
Okay, so Patrick sent me a J8 which seems to be quite nice when mounted on the M3. He says I need to get it shimmed. Couple of questions:

1. If I shoot a few frames with it, what would I expect non-shimmed?
2. Who can shim this lens for me?:)
Click to expand...

1) It'll be fine unless you get close and wide-open, where the back focusing might become evident
2) Instructions can be found on internets.com :)

I *suspect* my lens has been shimmed already, since a previous owner cemented the bloody lens block together and I couldn't get it apart when I was performing my "CLA" on it. Also, I haven't *always* failed close-focusing with my IIIc, but it's hard to get conclusive evidence without wasting film, which I don't really want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom