Testing four RF 50mm lenses

[marke]

Last night I decided load some Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) in my MP and run a few tests of my 50s:

1) Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph
2) Summitar 50/2.0 (early 1946 coated)
3) Summicron 50/2.0 (third ver.)
5) Industar 50/f3.5

All lenses were shot at f2.0, except for the Industar, which has a maximum aperture of f3.5. Each lens was focused on the small aloe plant sitting on the harp table, specifically on the highest leaf that is tipping towards the right side. Images were scanned with on a plustek OpticFilm 7200 film scanner. Nothing fancy, but good enough for this test. The scans were straight, with no adjustments. I used PS3 to resize and to make the crops. No adjustments here either.

The worst in sharpness and contrast was the Russian-made Industar. The Industar also exhibited a glow around the brightly lit lampshade. Even though the glow also has a very slight presence in the Summilux and Summicron prictures, it appears to be almost non-existent in picture taken with the Summicron.

Below are the pictures from each lens, resized for posting. Later in this thread, I will post comparison images from a 100% crop of the aloe plant.

1) Industar

2) Summicron

3) Summitar

4) Summilux

 

[raid]

Thanks for the lens comparison, Mark. The Summicron shows the least amount of glow, as you have said above. The Summilux shows more "light" in some darker areas of the image. Look at the left side of the image and go up 1/4 of the image height.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You can't really see any difference, except in contrast (which can be adjusted in printing or in Photoshop), in such small images. Did you see sharpness differences?

 

[marke]

100% crops

100% crops

For each shot, I focused on the highest leaf of the aloe plant, the one that points towards the right. Look at the detail and resolution that is recorded in the outer flower pot when comparing each lens.

I have one more 50mm that isn't included in this test, the 50/f2.8 Elmar-M. Tomorrow I'll post results from a test with all lenses shot @ f2.8 (excpet the Industar).

 

[thomasw_]

Thanks for the post. Man, those dust specks love summilux negatives the most!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I was surprised at your 100% crops. The summicron sucks. The old Summitar seems sharper, though lower in contrast, to me. I have an Industar-50 and it is contrastier and sharper (much sharper!) than your sample, but Soviet lenses had a lot of sample-to-sample variation due to poor quality control...I got lucky and you didn't I think. The Summicron's poor showing surprises me though.

 

[marke]

Chris, you are right about how the Summitar compares to the Summicron. The Summitar is coated, and quite clean. I got a great deal on it with a IIIf RD awhile back. I have an LTM to M adapter, but the wrong framelines come up. I want to get the corect one, since it's a great compact lens to make my MP pocketable.

I've heard that this version of the Summicron isn't the strongest contender of the versions, but then it's the only one I've even owned. It was my first Leica lens. Then who knows, maybe it could tweaked for better performance?

As far as the Industar lenses go, I've also heard that there can be a lot of differences between individual lenses. I heard on some forum awhile back of someone egtting a bad lens adjusted and it came back sharper than their Leica glass.

thomasw: Sorry about that dust. I didn't spend anytime cleaning the neg up since this wasn't ging to be a beauty contest. But you do bring up a good point. Good sharp glass = good sharp dust! 🙁

 

[Siluro]

To my eye, the softness of the 'cron looks to be due to camera movement more than lens softness.

 

[marke]

To my eye, the softness of the 'cron looks to be due to camera movement more than lens softness.

Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[payasam]

There's what looks like ghosting in the Summicron photo, the kind that comes with camera shake.

 

[Siluro]

Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Hard to put into words, but it looks more like a 'double image' than an overall softness.

 

[marke]

Okay, you guys have convinced me to run this test again. I confess that it was a last minute idea and that I didn't use a tripod. 😱 I figured shooting @ 1/60 was safe, but I realize that it's quite possible that camera shake might have come into play here.

I'll use a tripod and cable release this time. Promise! :angel:

I want to do something to compare bokeh from each lens too.

 

[raid]

Without using a tripod you cannot make comparisons that show fine details. I suggest that you use a heavy tripod and a cable release cord for such set-ups.

 

[marke]

Thanks, Raid. I have a heavy Bogen w/ballhead that I use with my DSLR. And a real Leica cable release. 😀

Back to the drawing board!

 

[januaryman]

I've had camera shake on a 50mm @ 1/60th also. I think my brain told me it was safe to do and I took no precaution to stabilize the camera or to take my time when framing the shot. My fault, but the fault was engendered by my recent use of my Canon IS S3, wherein the IS stands for Image Stabilization. I assume anything is handholdable... That camera is also a partner in crime to my recent poor guessing at Sunny 16 with my Leica M2. It happens.

Looking forward to the remake!

 

[chris00nj]

Despite the possible very minor shake, you still have some good results on the wide shots. The Summilux shines through above the other three.

It's fun to compare lenses. I recently did a lens test on some portrait lenses .

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

My first thought on seeing the Summicron crop was camera movement. There is a look to camera movement. I'm very surprised this test wasn't done on a tripod (and tripods can even introduce very fast vibrations if you're not absolutely careful...).

 

[lawrence]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'cron isn't very sharp. I had two, a rigid and another that was made about 1980. Immediately after I bought the second I took it on a shoot -- after all, it's a 'cron so no need to worry, right? Wrong! I noticed that the photos were not very sharp. Hmmm, obviously camera shake but just to make sure I set up a test. The rigid was sharper and my Heliar Classic was sharper and not by just a bit but by a lot. OK, something must be wrong, I thought, so I sent it for a CLA at CCR in Luton but Peter couldn't find anything wrong with it. So I did another test and still the same result -- not sharp. Must be something wrong with the test, surely? So I did a third and final test and there was no doubt about it -- this lens simply wasn't sharp and that's all there was to it. So don't assume, like I did, that just because it's a 'cron it's going to be sharp because it may not be. I guess you'll find out when you've used the tripod...

 

[marke]

I'm very surprised this test wasn't done on a tripod

Yeah, me too. Gees! 🙄

Lawrence: Thanks for sharing that story. Are you saying that Peter at CCR felt that the lens was as sharp as should be expected from a cron?

 

[mojobebop]

Thanks, Raid. I have a heavy Bogen w/ballhead that I use with my DSLR. And a real Leica cable release. 😀

Back to the drawing board!

----------
a question, & forgive my ignorance if i'm off base.
when doing lens/sharpness tests is it advisable to do so w/digital cameras
instead of film?

i ask this because i've noticed with my nikon d200, often, out of the camera
the images are not sharp.
you control the amount with the menu, and of course after the fact during pp.

with a negative, or slide, would you not have a more accurate assessment?