Testing 50's

[healyzh]

I had an interesting time tonight testing out 50mm lenses on my M9. Shooting wide open, should a Jupiter-8 f/2 and a Summitar f/2 beat a collapsable v1 Summicron? The only lens to beat the Summitar was the v4 Summicron, but the Jupiter-8 came quite close to beating it.

On a related note, all 3 Summar's performed different, as did both Nikkor-S.C f/1.4's.

In terms of quality (Nikkors at f/1.4, everything else at f/2):
1. Summicron v4
2. Summitar
3. Jupiter-8 (this is shocking as I didn't expect it to focus so well)
4. Summicron v1 (this is shocking as its a beautiful lens)
5. Nikkor-S.C. f/1.4 #1
6. Nikkor-S.C. f/1.4 #2
7. Summar #1
8. Summar #2 (Coated, and the image seemed a lot brighter)
9. Summar #3

Method of testing was shooting a printed out chart hanging from a bookcase. The combination of part of the chart, a book spin, and the piece of paper telling what the lens was were in the center of the image, this is the part I checked. I then Pixel peeped at 100% in Adobe Lightroom 3. Not the most scientific test, but I found it educational.

 

[mfogiel]

Do you have live view focusing in that digital toy? If not, I'm afraid these results are questionable.
As a side note, I thought that shooting charts with digital contraptions was a privilege of other forums.

 

[paradoxbox]

i don't understand the point of these kinds of tests

everyone knows that summicrons are sharp, and jupiter's are sonnar designs meant NOT to be sharp especially at the edges, why bother comparing except to check for focusing problems?

 

[healyzh]

i don't understand the point of these kinds of tests

The point is I didn't get what I expected.

everyone knows that summicrons are sharp, and jupiter's are sonnar designs meant NOT to be sharp especially at the edges, why bother comparing except to check for focusing problems?

That's kind of what I'm wondering, do I have a focusing problem with the v1 Summicron. My plan in getting the v1 Summicron has been to use it as the primary lens on my M6, where I mostly shoot B&W film, saving the v4 Summicron for the M9.

Originally I was simply planning to test to see how the Summar's compared to each other, but I decided to expand it to my whole collection of 50's. The last thing I expected was to have it beat by my Summitar and Jupiter-8. In fact I was seriously surprised to have the focus so close on the Jupiter-8, as I've always felt that it was a bit off wide open.

 

[healyzh]

I should probably add that I expected the 3 Summar's to be different. I have two with pretty nice glass, one is coated, one isn't. Then I just picked up a third with a pretty rough looking front element (though it performs better than I'd expected).

I also expected the two S-Mount Nikkor's to be basically the same, not for the older of the two to be noticeably better.

BTW, thanks paradoxbox for commenting on the edge sharpness, I was so shocked by the center sharpness results I didn't look at that. For the corner I checked, the V1 beats the Summitar and J-8 hands down. This makes me feel a lot better! 🙂

 

[Brian Legge]

It would be interesting to see how the better of the Nikkors did at f/2 relative to the other lenses at the same aperture. I don't suppose you could shoot it and see? I'm most interested in the older of the two as I have a 5005 which seems plenty sharp around that range.

 

[sleepyhead]

Still, the Summitar is a surprisingly good lens. I love mine.

 

[V-12]

I had an interesting time tonight testing out 50mm lenses on my M9.

And not a hint of irony.

I'm glad you did, it saves me the trouble. But reading a good book can be equally as interesting should you ever ponder doing the same with 35's. If only somebody would do it with 135's...........any takers for an interesting night??

 

[sanmich]

As pointed by Marek (mfogiel), digital sensors are known to be extra sensitive to focus accuracy.
You would need live view to really be able to neutralize the lens focus accuracy and to say something about the intrinsic properties of a piece of glass over another one.

 

[matt_mcg2]

For what it's worth, I have a coated Summar. It has a few tiny spots on one element, but the glass is pretty clean for an old lens. I was surprised by how good a decent Summar can be stopped down a couple of stops. By about f3.2 it's a very usable standard lens. Quite contrasty, and very sharp in the centre.

 

[Brian Legge]

As an aside, why are people so jumpy about someone spending some time better understanding their gear? That seems like a perfectly rational exercise.

 

[valdas]

As an aside, why are people so jumpy about someone spending some time better understanding their gear? That seems like a perfectly rational exercise.

Agree. Myself, I plan to test Olympus 35 SPn (Zuiko 42mm 1.7) vs some Leica glass. The reason for this test - Zuiko lens has a significant amount of fungus and I want to compare images shot with that "fungus" lens vs normal glass in identical conditions. Interesting exercise anyway, regardless of how meaningful/meaningless it may sound.

 

[Dralowid]

Probably no need with the much maligned and little used 135s. The Apo Telyt-M (which is still expensive) takes your breath away, the Tele-Elmar (which I still have) is splendid and it kind of downhill from there... you only need one!

Selects good book option....

 

[David Hughes]

Still, the Summitar is a surprisingly good lens. I love mine.

Hi,

I'll second that and the comments about the Jupiter.

Regards, David

 

[healyzh]

It would be interesting to see how the better of the Nikkors did at f/2 relative to the other lenses at the same aperture. I don't suppose you could shoot it and see? I'm most interested in the older of the two as I have a 5005 which seems plenty sharp around that range.

I hope to get a higher resolution, full size printout today of the resolution chart, and I want to look into redoing the tests. I was already planning on a second set of tests at f/5.6, but will add in the Nikkor's at f/2. Realistically though I'm most interested in using the Nikkor I use at f/1.4, at least until I get my Nikon S rangefinder repaired.

 

[healyzh]

And not a hint of irony.

I'm glad you did, it saves me the trouble. But reading a good book can be equally as interesting should you ever ponder doing the same with 35's. If only somebody would do it with 135's...........any takers for an interesting night??

Realistically I'd recommend doing this yourself if you're interested in seeing how your different lenses perform. One reason for this is the differences in my Summar's (expected), and another is the performance of my Summicron v1 relative to other lenses.

This test honestly doesn't even touch on why I have 3 Summar's and a Summitar, for that, I'll probably have to setup outside and focus on our porch post up close or something, as I'm interested in seeing how they perform with their slightly swirly bokeh.

Even if you're planning to use them on a film body, which I am in the case of the newly purchased Summcron v1, there are advantages to using a digital body. Namely taking scanning out of the equation, and being able to 'pixel-peep'. I just wish I had the live-view option for focusing, though I may drop everything except the Summicron v4 (I lack an adapter for it) onto my Visoflex III and shoot something like a stamp to compare the Summitar, J-8, and Summcron v1.

As for 35's, I only have a Voigtlander 35mm Nokton f/1.4 MC, though I'm thinking about a Summaron.

For 135 I have a Hektor, and an A.Schacht Travenar 135mm f/3.5 LTM. The test I did in November was shooting the tree line at my Aunt and Uncle's farm. The Travenar was lower contrast, and better center detail. At the edges though the Hektor pulls ahead.

 

[healyzh]

Hi,

I'll second that and the comments about the Jupiter.

Regards, David

I'm very fond of my J-8, it is a great lens, however, the apparent lack of focusing issues wide open surprised me, as I have observed that its focus tends to be off when shot wide open.