Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Spurred by some springtime temperatures and another RFF'ers recent question "should I get lens x or y?" I decided to "test" some 50mm lenses today. I put the word "test" in scare quotes because this is really just assembling some items on a table, setting the lenses on a Fuji XPro-1 with an adapter [(really, what could go wrong)?] and firing away. In answer to the rhetorical question, some of the lenses already had LTM-to-M adapters on them (Sumitar, Jupiter 8, Canon 50/1.5), the Contax mount lens (Opton) had an Amadeo adapter. No attempt was made to do quality control on the adapters. The sun insisted on changing its position in the sky . . . but I think the following will show a couple of things with my examples of these lenses. (only). So before I get all Sean-freaking-Reid, on ya (and by the way, I subscribe to and enjoy http://www.reidreviews.com/ and can get almost as lens-geeky as the next guy), let me just say that this was fun and is . . . as they say, for entertainment purposes only. I used the XPro-1 because you can magnify your focus area in a TTL sense and take any rangefinder calibration issues off the table. So to skip to the end.
1. All of these lenses are "good enough." Even the 'loser" -- the Canon 50/1.5 which flares like a . . . well, like a flare-y lens when wide open, was pretty good by f:4.
2. The difference in ability to render an image between the lowly Jupiter8 and the lofty 1980's Summicron -- even wide open -- is less than you might imagine for this sort of snap shot.
3. Nevertheless, I have my favorite: the 1980's Summicron remains a trusted friend. I actually choose it over the 50/1.4 Summilux (about five years old, arecent, but not too recent vintage) most of the time.
Here's the basic scene, rendered with the 1980's rigid Summicron at f:2, converted by LR5.7 into a DNG and then saved as a jpg for posting.
Here's the central area of that frame:
Just for giggles, here is the central area of the rigid Summicron at f:2
Pretty nice for a forty year old lens, right?
Here is the full image with the Summarit wide open:
And at f:2:
Sumarit central crop @ f:2:
Summitar full image at f:2
Here is the Summitar central area:
Here:s the Jupiter8 wide open (a little disappointing, I'll grant you):
And here's a detail from the Jupiter 8 with the exposure tweaked a little in Lightroom (cheating, I know, but hey . . .)
The bottom line for me is one that I will borrow from Sean Reid: We are really talking differences in the way lenses "draw". My Zeiss Opton, for instance, has some flare wide open, but stopped down to f:4?
It is just fine. So is this a "worse" lens, or one with a soft-focus and sharp-focus "setting" if you will?
The bottom line: lens testing is boring, particularly when it tells you what you already know. Here's the score --
Modern = contrastier, perhaps more clinical
Last 3rd of 20th Centry = sharp & sliiiightly lower contrast
Through 1950 or so, better be aware what the lens does when it is wide open vs. stopped down a bit.
Test "loser" was the Canon 50 f: 1.5 (possibly a Sonnar design):
But even that one is OK at f:4
Finally, I would join those who say "just go out and shoot," but I'll confess I have more 50's sitting in the cabinet behind me and I'll just say I understand the impulse to get the "Echt" lens for a particular purpose. I guess that makes me a self-confessed lens nut, and I am OK with that. The last thing to say is that just because my Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar clone flares when wide open, doesn't mean yours does or will. A tremendous amount of this pixel-peepy stuff depends on your particular lenses, how clean they are internally, whether they have been cleaned too often or too roughly, the treatment they had by their original owners (almost none of the lenses in today's fun test were purchased new by me. I think the exception, funnily enough, was the Jupiter 8, and it is really more accurate to say I have no idea what its provenance was before I acquired it. Happy snaps, ya'll.
1. All of these lenses are "good enough." Even the 'loser" -- the Canon 50/1.5 which flares like a . . . well, like a flare-y lens when wide open, was pretty good by f:4.
2. The difference in ability to render an image between the lowly Jupiter8 and the lofty 1980's Summicron -- even wide open -- is less than you might imagine for this sort of snap shot.
3. Nevertheless, I have my favorite: the 1980's Summicron remains a trusted friend. I actually choose it over the 50/1.4 Summilux (about five years old, arecent, but not too recent vintage) most of the time.
Here's the basic scene, rendered with the 1980's rigid Summicron at f:2, converted by LR5.7 into a DNG and then saved as a jpg for posting.
Here's the central area of that frame:
Just for giggles, here is the central area of the rigid Summicron at f:2
Pretty nice for a forty year old lens, right?
Here is the full image with the Summarit wide open:
And at f:2:
Sumarit central crop @ f:2:
Summitar full image at f:2
Here is the Summitar central area:
Here:s the Jupiter8 wide open (a little disappointing, I'll grant you):
And here's a detail from the Jupiter 8 with the exposure tweaked a little in Lightroom (cheating, I know, but hey . . .)
The bottom line for me is one that I will borrow from Sean Reid: We are really talking differences in the way lenses "draw". My Zeiss Opton, for instance, has some flare wide open, but stopped down to f:4?
It is just fine. So is this a "worse" lens, or one with a soft-focus and sharp-focus "setting" if you will?
The bottom line: lens testing is boring, particularly when it tells you what you already know. Here's the score --
Modern = contrastier, perhaps more clinical
Last 3rd of 20th Centry = sharp & sliiiightly lower contrast
Through 1950 or so, better be aware what the lens does when it is wide open vs. stopped down a bit.
Test "loser" was the Canon 50 f: 1.5 (possibly a Sonnar design):
But even that one is OK at f:4
Finally, I would join those who say "just go out and shoot," but I'll confess I have more 50's sitting in the cabinet behind me and I'll just say I understand the impulse to get the "Echt" lens for a particular purpose. I guess that makes me a self-confessed lens nut, and I am OK with that. The last thing to say is that just because my Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar clone flares when wide open, doesn't mean yours does or will. A tremendous amount of this pixel-peepy stuff depends on your particular lenses, how clean they are internally, whether they have been cleaned too often or too roughly, the treatment they had by their original owners (almost none of the lenses in today's fun test were purchased new by me. I think the exception, funnily enough, was the Jupiter 8, and it is really more accurate to say I have no idea what its provenance was before I acquired it. Happy snaps, ya'll.
