Benjamin Marks
Veteran
There was a recent thread about the Summitar, one of my favorite lenses. I wanted to show a real world example of the differences between the Summitar and say, the Opton, and the huge difference that using modern glass can make in terms of the look of an image. These are a series of tests that I ran a couple of weeks ago, because the E-P2 let me have instant feedback and because I was stuck out of place for a week or so. The first image is the whole scene and then the next eight pictures or so show in order 100% crops using a vintage Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton, the Summitar, an 80's tabbed cron, each wide open and then stopped down to f:4 or 5.6. Then for kicks there is a crop from the 50/1.4 Summilux Asph image and finally one from the 50/3.5 Heliar-S wide open. In terms of sharpness and contrast the modern lenses are so far ahead of what was being done in the 1940's that it isn't even funny. On the other hand, it isn't really a fair test. The Opton, e.g., hasn't been cleaned since I got it from Collector Cameras a year ago. The Summitar was CLA'd by Sherry Krauter and the Summilux was purchased new a couple of years ago.
So: the full scene taken with the Lux:
The Opton wide open:
Opton at f:4
Summitar wide open (see how good vs. the Opton, for example, although looking at it on RFF I wonder if I missed the focus by a hair)
Summitar @ 5.6
80's Tabbed Summicron @ f:2 (just an amazing lens, look how well the flare from highlights is suppressed even wide open)
Summicron @ f:5.6 (ouch!)
Now for another 25 years of optical design: Summilux Asph @ f:1.4. Note that there is the slightest bit of CA from the highlight, but overall it seems as sharp as the Summicron one stop slower. This is a 100% crop from the image at the top of the thread.
Just for a lark. The 50/3.5 Heliar. Of course it doesn't have to do speed. But this is wide open. Basically equal to the Summilux Asph for a fraction of the price. With the extra money you'll save, buy a tripod.
All images with an E-P2 on a tripod at ISO 160 with exposure set to A, auto white balance.
If you want to see the files on flicker, try:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14501597@N06/?saved=1
So: the full scene taken with the Lux:
The Opton wide open:
Opton at f:4
Summitar wide open (see how good vs. the Opton, for example, although looking at it on RFF I wonder if I missed the focus by a hair)
Summitar @ 5.6
80's Tabbed Summicron @ f:2 (just an amazing lens, look how well the flare from highlights is suppressed even wide open)
Summicron @ f:5.6 (ouch!)
Now for another 25 years of optical design: Summilux Asph @ f:1.4. Note that there is the slightest bit of CA from the highlight, but overall it seems as sharp as the Summicron one stop slower. This is a 100% crop from the image at the top of the thread.
Just for a lark. The 50/3.5 Heliar. Of course it doesn't have to do speed. But this is wide open. Basically equal to the Summilux Asph for a fraction of the price. With the extra money you'll save, buy a tripod.
All images with an E-P2 on a tripod at ISO 160 with exposure set to A, auto white balance.
If you want to see the files on flicker, try:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14501597@N06/?saved=1
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I should also say that these were Olympus E-P2 RAW files, processed in ACR 6.1 with the out-of-the-box defaults in terms of sharpening, grain reduction, exposure compensation etc. What I refer to as "flare" is really chromatic aberration or sensor bleed from the rim of the coffee cup being in the sun and acting like a concave reflector. The camera was on a tripod about 10 feet away from the window, which is generally north facing, and the sunlight was shining through the window at a pretty steep morning angle. If lenses had hoods, I used 'em, but the room lights were off so the light hitting the lens was mostly from the window.
Nice comparo. The Opton is one of my favorite lenses, but I rarely shoot it wide open; the flare goes away by f/2, maybe somewhere in between 1.5 and 2.
Impressive Summitar, I will need to try one.
Impressive Summitar, I will need to try one.
Oh Two
Established
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
Very interesting, but 1., I see a test for lens cleanliness, and 2., the first rule of basic photography 101 is always keep the the source of light behind one's shoulders. I am now inspired to make a test of my (clean) old glass against the new.
However, I still reach for my old glass first, so it will be hard getting past my prejudice. Tripod expenses be damned, 90% of the time the old glass at f4 or 5.6 still looks as good as the new. I shoot wide open at most 5% of the time, so look at all the money I've saved!
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
Very interesting, but 1., I see a test for lens cleanliness, and 2., the first rule of basic photography 101 is always keep the the source of light behind one's shoulders. I am now inspired to make a test of my (clean) old glass against the new.
However, I still reach for my old glass first, so it will be hard getting past my prejudice. Tripod expenses be damned, 90% of the time the old glass at f4 or 5.6 still looks as good as the new. I shoot wide open at most 5% of the time, so look at all the money I've saved!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Ha! Yes. A clean lens is a happy lens, no question. I guess it's true too that my days of contre-jour coffee cup portraiture are numbered.
Santafecino
button man
Thank you a bunch for doing this test. I've been wondering whether to expect great things from my 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar; now I will. But for portraits I go back to the Jupiter-3; it's sharp but soft at the same time--if I can put it that way?