Harry Lime
Practitioner
Not the case if you develop the film properly...
If anything you will see more accurate highlight gradation with the Lux ASPH, as it is less prone to flare and won't muddle the tonality with blooming.
Last edited:
What's better than a 50mm Summicron?
- Thread starter mark-b
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 5K
Not the case if you develop the film properly...
If anything you will see more accurate highlight gradation with the Lux ASPH, as it is less prone to flare and won't muddle the tonality with blooming.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Marke, the various lens "families" often have slightly different names for their lenses. Schneider Componon is top of the line, 6 elements (at least in the 50/2.8), Componar is 4. The 6 element 50/2.8 El Nikkor was the first 50/2.8. Some of the less expensive enlarger lenses carrying importers' names have three elements.
Cheap lenses aren't always a bad thing. When I was young and penniless I bought a$7.95 Spiratone 75mm. Years later when Scneider introduced their multi-coated Componon-S they dumped the old unsold single coated Componons and I picked up an 80mm f/5.6 for under $60. I use them both. When I want the sharpest looking 11x14 print I can get I use the Componon. With slower fine grain films such as Plus-X or FP4 the Componon will resolve the grain on an 11x14. The Spiratone still gives a sharp enough visual image but won't quite resolve the grain, ideal for portraits.
Cheap lenses aren't always a bad thing. When I was young and penniless I bought a$7.95 Spiratone 75mm. Years later when Scneider introduced their multi-coated Componon-S they dumped the old unsold single coated Componons and I picked up an 80mm f/5.6 for under $60. I use them both. When I want the sharpest looking 11x14 print I can get I use the Componon. With slower fine grain films such as Plus-X or FP4 the Componon will resolve the grain on an 11x14. The Spiratone still gives a sharp enough visual image but won't quite resolve the grain, ideal for portraits.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Back when I was in undergrad at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto in the early '90s, I did a three way lens test using the RIT test charts (using Kodak Tech Pan 25) and photographing in 'real world' situations. The lenses were a 50mm Summar, a 50mm Summarit and a 50mm Summicron (1956 vintage) on an M3. My particular Summicron ended up resolving at 79.4 lines/mm, which was not the highest of the three (Summarit was 89.1 lines/mm). However, it had the most consistency and best overall quality of the three lenses. Funny, but the Summar turned out to be pretty darned good too!
It was a really interesting test, and definitely provided some hard data for lenses that I had in my collection but didn't really think to analyze until this project. But, as people have said here, what constitutes 'best' depends upon the criteria one is using.
A copy of the full report was submitted to Hughes Leitz (at the time) in Midland. Don't know if it's still kicking around there or not!
It was a really interesting test, and definitely provided some hard data for lenses that I had in my collection but didn't really think to analyze until this project. But, as people have said here, what constitutes 'best' depends upon the criteria one is using.
A copy of the full report was submitted to Hughes Leitz (at the time) in Midland. Don't know if it's still kicking around there or not!
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
I sometimes wonder if "best" and "better" should be added to the list of naughty words we are not supposed to use on the forum. Could we have a vote one it?
Regards, David
Regards, David
tennis-joe
Well-known
I just tested a Summicron 50f2.0 verses the Nikkor LTM 50f1.4 and I don't see much difference on my M6. The Nikkor is about 40 + years difference in manufacture but heavier in weight and with an adapter for my M it feels good. The adapter is a CV from Stephan Gandy and fits wonderful. I also tested an Elmar 50f2.8 LTM with the same adapter and it is great. I had it cleaned and lubed by Sherry K. and it like brand new. These three photos are posted on my Flicker page.
Joe
Joe
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I posted/corresponded with another RFF'er who was looking for comparisons between the Zeiss 50 Planar and the Summicron. The following is an edited version of what I sent him.
====================
I have a tabbed 1980's Summicron and the ZM 50/2. I wish I had something definitive to say about the image quality between them. I don't. The Zeiss is scary sharp in the center of the frame, as are the modern Summicrons. Finish quality goes to the Summicron, as the CV-Zeiss black paint started wearing through to the brass within weeks of purchase, whereas my 1980's Cron has seen use every week since 1994 and doesn't have a mark on it (and I bought it used). Hood and lenscap on the Summicron are easier to use; the Zeiss lens cap is pretty fiddly. I have just run two side-by-side images at f:2. You can see fairly subtle differences in the way the two lenses render an image, for instance in the out of focus areas (slightly smoother with the Summicron -- but we are talking VERY hard to see). In focus highlights have a slight "bloom" to them with the Zeiss that is a marginally better controlled with the Summicron. Both lenses show a little CA off axis in the test image wide open, but you have to view the images at 100% to see it -- there is sliiiightly more CA with the Zeiss lens, to my eye. I know it is a cliche, but you really can't go wrong with either lens. . . . I purchased the Planar hoping that it would match the quality of the G-Planar 45/2. It turned out to be its own beast, very good at making images, but not a substitute for the G-Planar. The better "value" seems to be the Zeiss on the face of things, but I think you'd really have to check in in 20 years to know for sure. What I mean by that is that it is pretty clear to me where the extra money went for the Summicron (higher quality finish, better cap/hood design, more screws in the Cron's mount, Cron is slightly lighter in weight (1 oz.) -- but in terms of image quality, I don't know whether you would notice this relatively minor stuff).
Finally, I would note that my own crude results differ slightly from other reviews I have read, including Sean Reid's excellent comparison of 50's on his paid review site. This may mean that there is some sample variation in the lenses that are out there, or it may mean that in real world situations, you probably would not notice any practical difference in image quality between these two excellent lenses.
You can listen to folks' opinions all day long, but at the end of the day you have to see images made with each lens to choose. FWIW, I have a 50/1.5 Canon Sonnar clone and it has a totally different look than the Summicron/Planar wide open. Tons of spherical abberation, lots of 'glow' -- It is in no sense "better" than either the Summicron or the Planar . . . but if you want that look you can't beat it with a stick. FYI, camera position was identical for [my test pictures]. The camera was mounted on a tripod and only the lens changed. I did have to change the tilt of the camera though, to focus. . . . I would give the off-axis edge to the Summicron. . . but like most differences in performance of lenses of this caliber, it may come down to personal preference.
Ben Marks
====================
I have a tabbed 1980's Summicron and the ZM 50/2. I wish I had something definitive to say about the image quality between them. I don't. The Zeiss is scary sharp in the center of the frame, as are the modern Summicrons. Finish quality goes to the Summicron, as the CV-Zeiss black paint started wearing through to the brass within weeks of purchase, whereas my 1980's Cron has seen use every week since 1994 and doesn't have a mark on it (and I bought it used). Hood and lenscap on the Summicron are easier to use; the Zeiss lens cap is pretty fiddly. I have just run two side-by-side images at f:2. You can see fairly subtle differences in the way the two lenses render an image, for instance in the out of focus areas (slightly smoother with the Summicron -- but we are talking VERY hard to see). In focus highlights have a slight "bloom" to them with the Zeiss that is a marginally better controlled with the Summicron. Both lenses show a little CA off axis in the test image wide open, but you have to view the images at 100% to see it -- there is sliiiightly more CA with the Zeiss lens, to my eye. I know it is a cliche, but you really can't go wrong with either lens. . . . I purchased the Planar hoping that it would match the quality of the G-Planar 45/2. It turned out to be its own beast, very good at making images, but not a substitute for the G-Planar. The better "value" seems to be the Zeiss on the face of things, but I think you'd really have to check in in 20 years to know for sure. What I mean by that is that it is pretty clear to me where the extra money went for the Summicron (higher quality finish, better cap/hood design, more screws in the Cron's mount, Cron is slightly lighter in weight (1 oz.) -- but in terms of image quality, I don't know whether you would notice this relatively minor stuff).
Finally, I would note that my own crude results differ slightly from other reviews I have read, including Sean Reid's excellent comparison of 50's on his paid review site. This may mean that there is some sample variation in the lenses that are out there, or it may mean that in real world situations, you probably would not notice any practical difference in image quality between these two excellent lenses.
You can listen to folks' opinions all day long, but at the end of the day you have to see images made with each lens to choose. FWIW, I have a 50/1.5 Canon Sonnar clone and it has a totally different look than the Summicron/Planar wide open. Tons of spherical abberation, lots of 'glow' -- It is in no sense "better" than either the Summicron or the Planar . . . but if you want that look you can't beat it with a stick. FYI, camera position was identical for [my test pictures]. The camera was mounted on a tripod and only the lens changed. I did have to change the tilt of the camera though, to focus. . . . I would give the off-axis edge to the Summicron. . . but like most differences in performance of lenses of this caliber, it may come down to personal preference.
Ben Marks
dap
Established
Very true. I used to really buy into comparisons between lenses and the overall hunt for the "best" lens in any particular class. That all died when I started doing my own darkroom work. There are so many variables that enter into the equation during the printing stage that giving the "taking" lens the lions share of the credit for the resulting image seems a bit silly.
That being said, I'm sure that the digital medium lends itself to lens comparisons much more readily than film (which would explain why camera forums seem to be flush with "pixel peepers").
My advice - get the lens that handles the best for you.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Al is pretty spot on. However, I have had certain lenses that behave in certain VERY noticeable ways that I didn't like. The Canon EF 50/1.4 is a good example - wide open, it loses a lot of contrast and gets hazy. The above mentioned Nikkor 50/1.4 does a similar thing and I was getting strange flares with it too. Ultimately, I wanted to find a lens that didn't do either of these things wide open. So my hunt for a 50 was fora reasonably sharp lens that didn't fall apart at any particular distance or aperture, and was reasonably flare resistant.
Here's an example of the Nikkor that exhibits both of these traits:
Here's an example of the Nikkor that exhibits both of these traits:
Uncle Bill
Well-known
- Local time
- 5:22 AM
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,076
If the 'cron you have works best for you, then why worry. I laugh how people geek out on test scores, the true bench mark the lens is how image it creates prints out on paper from the negative (or raw/jpeg file if you are using a M8).
For the record I own and use a collapsible 50 f2 'cron and a Canon 50 f1.4 LTM. I do have a ZM 50 f2 Planar and the CV 50 f1.5 Nokton on my shopping list when I get re-employed.
For the record I own and use a collapsible 50 f2 'cron and a Canon 50 f1.4 LTM. I do have a ZM 50 f2 Planar and the CV 50 f1.5 Nokton on my shopping list when I get re-employed.
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't worry about getting the "best" 50mm lens; I have many to choose from, and I like what I manage to get from them. I can see that the 45mm 2.0 Zeiss Planar for the Contax G1 is sharper than the lenses that I have as RF lenses.
Superdan138
Established
Me too
Me too
I have NOT used a lot of Leica glass....BUT I LOVE my 35 summicron!!! This and a Nocti are all I need now...so the Nocti is on my to get list.
-Daniel
Me too
I have NOT used a lot of Leica glass....BUT I LOVE my 35 summicron!!! This and a Nocti are all I need now...so the Nocti is on my to get list.
-Daniel
Platon
Member
Hexanon 50/1.7
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I believe if the lenses are not classified by their signatures, it is hard to define the best...
Has anyone tried to classify the RF lenses? Why dont we try to make charts and characteristics of certain group of lenses and so people who wants a lens for a specific purpose can decide easily?
Has anyone tried to classify the RF lenses? Why dont we try to make charts and characteristics of certain group of lenses and so people who wants a lens for a specific purpose can decide easily?
F
former member
Guest
That is a big undertaking. I try to post sample shots with different lenses, or have some sample shots available for when an opinion is sought.
Questions like the one in this thread, "Better than a Summicron", should be met with "Better for What?"
What's better than a Summicron for portraits? A Summarit.
Of the Summicrons- I like the collapsible Summicron the best. Of the 50mm lenses that I have, I like the CZJ 5cm F1.5 "T" Sonnar the best. Just because.
Questions like the one in this thread, "Better than a Summicron", should be met with "Better for What?"
What's better than a Summicron for portraits? A Summarit.
Of the Summicrons- I like the collapsible Summicron the best. Of the 50mm lenses that I have, I like the CZJ 5cm F1.5 "T" Sonnar the best. Just because.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Exactly, I saw your nice test shots Brian, great job...
