Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I've had a nagging desire to try to shoot my 5cm
Leica lenses in some controlled manner, to see if
I could see any difference among them. The short
answer: Not enough to care about.
The lenses:
(1) A freshly-cleaned, uncoated nickel Summar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48525
for samples of photograhs shot through it.
(2) A clear, coated Summar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42357
for sample photographs from it.
(3) A clear, uncoated nickel Elmar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43753
for sample [NUDE] photographs shot through it.
None of the lenses is scratched, or hazed.
Test: I set a IIIa on a tripod and stood my victim
(a.k.a. my wife Melanie) about 6-7 feet away, in
the middle of 92nd Street late in the afternoon.
The lighting conditions were identical to those
shown in the photos in the first thread above: a
shadowed street with bright sky in the background.
To try to level the playing field, I made all exposures
at f/3.5, at 1/200 second. So the two Summars
were stopped down slightly, while the Elmar was wide
open. I shot five exposures with each lens. The first
three were without any hood, the last two with a
FISON hood.
Results: The differences were sufficiently subtle, at
least when viewing 1200 dpi scans of the negatives,
as to lead me to conclude we all lose way too much
sleep worrying over imagined differences between
these various lenses.
(1) The addition of the lens hood made no difference
at all under the conditions of the test.
(2) As between the two Summars, the coated lens,
surprisingly, showed a hint more flare in the center,
around Melanie's head against the bright background
sky. But the coated lens did a noticeably better job
of rendering detail at the periphery of the images.
(3) The Elmar was not quite as crisp as either Summar
-- it had a very slightly muddier look. I do not know if
this is an inherent difference or if it is a function of the
way I tested the lenses. I stopped down the Summars
from F/2 to f/3.5, but I shot the Elmar wide-open.
Perhaps, had I stopped down the Elmar, it would have
improved its look.
These differences were very subtle. My conclusion, for
what it's worth, is that all three lenses produce similar
results. I'll probably leave the Summars on my II and
IIIa simply because they are faster, and can give me
more options when exposing in low light. My decisions
in composing and lighting a photograph, and my camera
handling skills (or lapses), will have a far bigger impact
on the success of any photo I take with any one of
these lenses.
Sanders.
Leica lenses in some controlled manner, to see if
I could see any difference among them. The short
answer: Not enough to care about.
The lenses:
(1) A freshly-cleaned, uncoated nickel Summar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48525
for samples of photograhs shot through it.
(2) A clear, coated Summar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42357
for sample photographs from it.
(3) A clear, uncoated nickel Elmar. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43753
for sample [NUDE] photographs shot through it.
None of the lenses is scratched, or hazed.
Test: I set a IIIa on a tripod and stood my victim
(a.k.a. my wife Melanie) about 6-7 feet away, in
the middle of 92nd Street late in the afternoon.
The lighting conditions were identical to those
shown in the photos in the first thread above: a
shadowed street with bright sky in the background.
To try to level the playing field, I made all exposures
at f/3.5, at 1/200 second. So the two Summars
were stopped down slightly, while the Elmar was wide
open. I shot five exposures with each lens. The first
three were without any hood, the last two with a
FISON hood.
Results: The differences were sufficiently subtle, at
least when viewing 1200 dpi scans of the negatives,
as to lead me to conclude we all lose way too much
sleep worrying over imagined differences between
these various lenses.
(1) The addition of the lens hood made no difference
at all under the conditions of the test.
(2) As between the two Summars, the coated lens,
surprisingly, showed a hint more flare in the center,
around Melanie's head against the bright background
sky. But the coated lens did a noticeably better job
of rendering detail at the periphery of the images.
(3) The Elmar was not quite as crisp as either Summar
-- it had a very slightly muddier look. I do not know if
this is an inherent difference or if it is a function of the
way I tested the lenses. I stopped down the Summars
from F/2 to f/3.5, but I shot the Elmar wide-open.
Perhaps, had I stopped down the Elmar, it would have
improved its look.
These differences were very subtle. My conclusion, for
what it's worth, is that all three lenses produce similar
results. I'll probably leave the Summars on my II and
IIIa simply because they are faster, and can give me
more options when exposing in low light. My decisions
in composing and lighting a photograph, and my camera
handling skills (or lapses), will have a far bigger impact
on the success of any photo I take with any one of
these lenses.
Sanders.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Sanders,Sanders McNew said:
Yup. Well, some of us do. I gave up worrying years ago...
Of course you're dealing with lenses that are around 70 years old, so wear and tear, and sample variation, may not be irrelevant.
Even so, I see some lenses as 'magic' (an unusually high number of undeservedly good pics) and my current favourite 50, against expectation, is the ZI 1,5/50 Sonnar, alas not available in screw mount.
Cheers,
R.
raid
Dad Photographer
Sanders: Thanks for bringing back a comparison of 50mm vintage lenses. I have quite a few of such lenses, and they do what they can do ... up to a point.
Roger: I see that you are favoring a new lens. Is it the ZI optical "wunder" or is it the 1.5 Sonnar magic? For example, would you favor the ZI over a very clean Canon 50/1.5 or a Nokton 1.5 (Prominent version and the modern one)? Why? Thanks.
Roger: I see that you are favoring a new lens. Is it the ZI optical "wunder" or is it the 1.5 Sonnar magic? For example, would you favor the ZI over a very clean Canon 50/1.5 or a Nokton 1.5 (Prominent version and the modern one)? Why? Thanks.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Here is a rough unsharpened scan of one of the
negatives (coated Summar with hood) that I post
only to show lighting and other circumstances. It
is hardly one of my better efforts.
negatives (coated Summar with hood) that I post
only to show lighting and other circumstances. It
is hardly one of my better efforts.
aad
Not so new now.
Thanks for the comparison. I agree many times the differences are subtle, the exception being my Summarit which has a "silky" look that I can pick out in a moment, as well as incredible flare (possibly due to coating condition).
My Elmar gets less crisp wide open-used at f8, it's quite sharp.
My Elmar gets less crisp wide open-used at f8, it's quite sharp.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Raid,raid said:
Hard to say. Mostly, I don't care for 5cm lenses. Among RF lenses, as well as the current Sonnar I have at present in my possession (at least) current Noktilux, current Nokton, 1960s 1,2 Canon, current 2,5 Color-Skopar, 1936 Elmar, DR Summicron, and I've had recently had the current Summicron. In the past I've had original Nokton (two), Ultron (two), 1,8 Yashinon, Xenon, Summar (several), Summitar, Summarit, Jupiter-8 (lots), Russian f/2.8 on Fed (forgotten the name), orginal f/1.5 and f/2 Sonnars, current ZI 2/50, Russian 1,5, TTH (Reid) f/2, plus whatever is on a Hensoldt. I've never had a 50/1,5 Canon for a proper loan but for the few pics I tried with one, I was not impressd.
I hadn't expected to be impressed by the Sonnar, because I never really liked old Sonnars, but somehow, I fell in love with it. As I say, it's 'magic', which is simultaneously a cop-out and a statement that it's not quantifiable. It's an awful lot better than any other Sonnar I've ever had (the design is somewhat revised). The last 50 I really saw as magic was probably an Ultron on a Bomb Doors Vitessa, but I found the camera limiting.
Sorry I can't be more informative.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
ljsegil
Well-known
Perhaps you are shortchanging the Summars by not also trying them wide open as well as stopped down. In my hands, that is when their "magic" best comes out and the beautiful Summar look is most evident.
I agree with Roger that the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 also has "magic" to its look. A special lens. Now if only I could get the chance to try the ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, as it has recently also gotten some raves.
Best,
LJS
I agree with Roger that the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 also has "magic" to its look. A special lens. Now if only I could get the chance to try the ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, as it has recently also gotten some raves.
Best,
LJS
John Shriver
Well-known
I suspect that Summars do have more sample variation than the easier to make lenses. The Hektor 50/2.5 is known to have been hard to make consistently.
When buying a Summar, it may well be that if you find one with good glass, but a well-worn barrel, that means it was a particularly good sample, and got used a lot. Mine has a rather brassed barrel, and has been cleaned carefully, and has been very well behaved indeed. Absolutely mint Summars might just be optical dogs...
Of course, nothing will eliminate the light falloff in the corners at wide apertures, and the bokeh of light through leaves can be rather dizzying. (Swirling in circles.)
When buying a Summar, it may well be that if you find one with good glass, but a well-worn barrel, that means it was a particularly good sample, and got used a lot. Mine has a rather brassed barrel, and has been cleaned carefully, and has been very well behaved indeed. Absolutely mint Summars might just be optical dogs...
Of course, nothing will eliminate the light falloff in the corners at wide apertures, and the bokeh of light through leaves can be rather dizzying. (Swirling in circles.)
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Back in undergrad at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto, I did a three way comparison using a 1935 Summar, a 1950 Summarit and a collapsible 1956 f/2 Summicron. I tested them in the field and also tested them using the Rochester Institute of Technology Alphanumeric Resolution Test. The Summarit produced the highest resolving power at 89 lines/mm, while the Summar and Summicron both yielded 79.4 lines/mm. Interestingly, the Summar, uncoated and the oldest of the three lenses tested, produced the same resolving power as the Summicron, AND produced better results than the Summarit wide open. The Summar worked best at f/5.6. True, the negs and slides were lower in contrast (this lens was introduced before Kodachrome, don't forget!), but I wouldn't underestimate the qualities of a good clean Summar.
Last edited: