The "look" of three 50mm

[bobofish]

Regit,
I have a feeling you're going to be an extremely welcome addition to RFF.

I'm happy to see a post like this, it's very informative.

Cheers!

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Regit,

Nice to see you here at RFF. Been admiring your work on Pnet for some time.

Very close call, but I favor the Lux and the Sonnar (I favor high contrast). The sonnar brings back great memories of my former Contax 50/1.5 sonnar. For a fraction of the Lux, I'd say that old sonnar technology is something quite magical.

Has any progress been made with that Contax to M-mount conversion project? I seem to recall someone was working on it.

cheers

 

[Paulbe]

Regit---thanks for the post! Very eye-opening so to speak..the most amazing thing to me is how little real differences there are among the lens. Isn't the 'Lux priced significantly higher than the other two? Hmmmmmm...
Thanks again!
Paul

 

[regit]

Regit,

Nice to see you here at RFF. Been admiring your work on Pnet for some time.

Very close call, but I favor the Lux and the Sonnar (I favor high contrast). The sonnar brings back great memories of my former Contax 50/1.5 sonnar. For a fraction of the Lux, I'd say that old sonnar technology is something quite magical.

Has any progress been made with that Contax to M-mount conversion project? I seem to recall someone was working on it.

cheers

Hi Tom, the Sonnar is indeed quite remarkable even by today's standards. It has qualities that is lacking in modern lens, particularly how OOF areas are rendered. This lens has found a permanent place in one the camera 🙂

The Sonnar I have is indeed a Contax lens (West German black-nose) mounted via an adapter. The last I heard about the project, it halted due to issues relating to insufficient clearance from the Kiev focusing helicoid... But I think someone found a way to make them. I got the adapter from $bay, and it looks like someone found a clever way to adapt the Kiev's helicoid. Whatever the case may be, the adapter works and the lens is great shooter... I guess that is all that matters 🙂

 

[regit]

Regit---thanks for the post! Very eye-opening so to speak..the most amazing thing to me is how little real differences there are among the lens. Isn't the 'Lux priced significantly higher than the other two? Hmmmmmm...
Thanks again!
Paul

Hi Paul, don't write off the 'Lux too quickly. As stated in the post, I'm showing just the "look" given by the lens. There are other qualities that can't be demonstrated through these pictures, such as resolution, micro-contrast and acutance. The 'Lux also renders point sources differently at night. For example wide-open, point sources are well defined and do not exhibit (much) halo. This may be important to some and again, are not reflected in these pictures.

That being said, I think all three have unique qualities and can be used in conjunction with each other 🙂

 

[Biggles]

The Summar looks like it was made to take flattering pictures of girl-persons. What a smooth rendering of skin tones...

An interesting and educational post. Thank you. I hope it inspires others with multiple examples of a given focal length in identical mounts to take the time to do similar tests- and post them here.

Now, to go google-up whatever a Summar is...

 

[billwheeler]

I prefer the look created by the summilux lens, which beautifully renders tonal values. The image produced by the zeiss, by comparison, appears a little harsh to me. I was interested in seeing the image produced by the summar next to those produced by the other two lenses. The summar produces a "vintage" look, with less sharpness and contrast; it would make a desirable second addition to a kit. Thanks for posting the pics side-by-side.

 

[vha]

Nice photos indeed, liked the sonnar shots, looks like it´s time to start collecting 50´s 😀, sounds like a good idea for the new year.

vha

 

[Paulbe]

Hi again Rigit and thanks for the note. I'm not writing off the 'Lux--in fact the new 1.4 ASPH is near the top of my "lust list"--and my Dell monitor may not be showing everything that others are seeing. There IS a huge difference in price though--
Paul

 

[terrafirmanada]

Great post. Now we can all wish for three other lenses we don't have. I have been thinkng about getting a dr Summicron for some time. Any ideas how it compares to the Lux? It seems very contrasty in shot I have seen.

 

[Nick R.]

Thanks, Regit. Now I know to never buy a Summar. It's funny how subjective these things are. I can't stand its veiling flare and low contrast. The Sonnar and the 'Lux both look good here. I have an early 'lux which has a little different look, I believe. (f1.4)

 

[PaulN]

Hi Robert,

Yes, when I said TP, I meant Technical Pan. 4+1 means 4 min in solution A and 1 min in solution B.

1 minute in solution B, that is interesting. Can you post a write up as to what you obtain with only a 1 minute bath, versus the 3min recommendation? Also, if you have any other pics developed in the 4+1 method, I'd love to see them.

Thanks!
-Paul

 

[Todd.Hanz]

They are all subjected to the same treatment. The Summar does looks more "glowy" than the rest. But it also has lower contrast and more flare. Those who like the Summar would say it is glow, those who don't would say it is just flare ... I like Summar, so ... 🙂 But one have to be careful shooting against bright light source.

I would argue the flare issue with the summar, less contrast yes but not flare, all three lenses have the same detail in the highlight areas behind the model (looks like a building roofline). The "hoody" she is wearing and the strap across her exhibits the effects of a lower contrast lens and not flare, IMHO. Excellent comparison here!


Todd

 

[ray_g]

Another thing is that there seems to be a strong light source on the left. It would be interesting to know if you had a hood on the summar.

 

[FrankS]

Thank you for this Regit!

I hope to do something similar with my range of 50mm lenses. (9 in LTM/M, and 5 in Contax/Kiev mount) My collecting of 50mm lenses is done.

I am only lacking the Summar lens (in Leica) and I think I can get similar results with the Summarit or Summitar wide open.

The Contax to Leica adaptor came up in this thread. I think the easiest/best approach is simply to get a Contax or Kiev body in order to use the 50 f1.5 Sonnar lens. But that's just me.

I love the shot in your post #20! (woman in front of lake) Very nice effect with that Sonnar lens. Can I borrow your model? 🙂

 

[MCTuomey]

Great post, and thanks for taking the time to do it. Interesting results - were they all shot at the same relative exposure? It looks like the Summar version might have benefitted from a stop less exposure.

 

[taffer]

I quite like the Helios 103 shot too, I must say though that the first post is one of the best advertisings for a Summilux that I've seen 🙂

Tom, the 50/1.5 is now living in a 50's Kiev II and is well cared for 😉

I've seen several sellers auctioning Contax/M adapters now, I guess it's easier to adapt the Contax helical for M mount only, the screw mount seemed to add more trouble.

Unfortunately many of my favorite RFs are screw mount :bang:

Hmm...

 

[regit]

Great post. Now we can all wish for three other lenses we don't have. I have been thinkng about getting a dr Summicron for some time. Any ideas how it compares to the Lux? It seems very contrasty in shot I have seen.

Unfortunately, I've never use a DR or I can't comment on it ... have heard and seen a lot of good stuff about it though 🙂

 

[regit]

Thanks, Regit. Now I know to never buy a Summar. It's funny how subjective these things are. I can't stand its veiling flare and low contrast. The Sonnar and the 'Lux both look good here. I have an early 'lux which has a little different look, I believe. (f1.4)

That's a good looking gentleman, thank you for sharing it 🙂

 

[regit]

1 minute in solution B, that is interesting. Can you post a write up as to what you obtain with only a 1 minute bath, versus the 3min recommendation? Also, if you have any other pics developed in the 4+1 method, I'd love to see them.

Thanks!
-Paul

Hi Paul, Tech Pan is a high contrast copy film and using the recommended time will give you that. For pictorial use, I initially followed available information on the Internet:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/TechPan/techpan.html

Then I varied the timing for solution B to suit. Depending on the time in solution B, contrast can change. The longer you soup, the more contrast you get (though I've never tried more than 2.5 min)...

Here're two more from the same roll, again 4+1 ...

Here's one souped for 2min in solution B ...