Wow what a difference in Leica and Nikkor glass

x-ray

x-ray

Veteran
Local time
7:13 PM
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
5,744
I ran across a thread on one of the forums in RFF a week or so ago and was amazed at a comparison between 50mm canon, Leitz and Nikkor glass. Today I was kicking around after finshing the days studio work and unpacking my MP that I ordered yesterday and deceided to pester my wife with it. A month ago I purchased a new S3 2000 with the new 50 1.4 so I deceided to put the 50 1.4 nikkor to the test with my late model 50 non asp summicron. I went to my wifes studio, she's a fine art painter, and loaded some delta 400 into the S3 and MP. She uses some strong lights on each side of her easle and overhead. I shot the same angle and view of my wife working with one of the lights direct in the right third of the frame. The exposure was 1/60 @ f4. I then tested my 85 f2 nikkor (very early model f16) with my late production 90 elmarit (1st version probably from the late 70's). I also tested my 35 summicron last non asp version against my late production 35 2.5 nikkor. For good measure I threw in the 105 nikkor. All of the glass except the 50's appeared to be about the same in sharpness and contrast. I was actually surprised that the Leitz glass wasn't a little better but both are superb. The amazing thing was the Nikkor walked all over the summicron. There wasn't a small difference, it was major. Both were very sharp but the summicron had ball of fuzzzzzzzzzzzzz around the light. There was flare in the subject and shadows and tones were flatter than the nikkor. The roll of delta that I had in the leica was an older batch than the roll in the nikon. The older film had more base density that would make the subject flatter but the ball of fuzzzzzzzzzz was due to internal flare in the lens. I always considered the summicron to be the standard and now I wish I hadn't compared them. I used to have a Noctilux 50 1.2 leitz and leica considered it the best for high contrast shooting under poor light where a light source would be in the picture like a street light on a nighttime street. I don't have the lens anylonger unfortunately but I would love to see how it compared to the new nikkor. How do the various leitz 50 summilux versions comare? Any experience?

I probably won't have time this week to scanand post any but next week I will try.

Can anyone tell me how to post an image so it appears at the bottom of the text in a post?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
Last edited:
Sshhh.

Wouldn't want to cause any buyer's remorse for those who spent so much money on Leitz glass, considering the price of equivalent old Nikkors.

On the other hand, the 50mm "new" Nikkor is a fairly rare bird at any price ... a modern lens with modern coatings in an old mount. I'd imagine the formula is related to the SLR Nikkor, which is an incredible lens. I'm very close to tracking down an S3-2000. An original S3 has been on of my two daily shooters for years, so I really llike the camera anyway, and would love to get the new 50mm 1.4.
 
Ohhh! The remorse! $250 for a Collapsible Summicron vs. $250 for a 50 Nikkor. Oh the remorse!!!

X-Ray, always loved your gallery collection. Great moments, great eye, great tones.
 
I didn't want to sound like the summicron is a bad lens becaise it's not. It's really a fine lens and better or equal to most other lenses on the market. The Nikkor that I have is the new version not the older one and is available only in a package with the S3 2000. It's a different lens than the original. I've heard it's a remake of the Olympic but I think it's physically longer so I would guess it's more than a remake. I don't think the original formulation would compare aswell with the summicron.

It was interesting last yearwhen I ran a test of my Canon L glass ans some vintage 60's Nikkor 1st generation slr glass on my 1DsmkII Canon. I have always like the Nikon film bodies better than anyother and loved the 24mm 2.8 and 105 2.5. I have been taking advantage of the low prices on some of this equipmwent and purchased a few nice lenses and a couple of bodies. I have a Nikkor to Canon EOS adapter and thought I would dee how these olf favorite lenses performed compared to the new L prime lenses. I compared my 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L 50mm, 85mm 1.2L and 135mm 2L with my 24mm f2.8 nikkor, 28mm 3.5 Nikkor, 35mm 2.8 nikkor, 50mm 3.5 micro, old 50mm 1.4 Nikkor and 105 2.5 Nikkor. All Nikkors were first generation from the sixties. I coule not believe how well the Nikkors performed. Inspecting the images on my monitor at 100% the Nikkors were equally as sharp fstop to fstop as the canon L glass with slightly less contrast. The surprise was the high level of chromatic aberations in the corners of the Canon wide glass that didn't exist in the Nikkor. The Nikkors had a very low level of CA. The 50mm 1.4 was quite soft untill I reached f4-5.6 and a considerable of light falloff at the edges. The 105 was killer at all aperatures with a moderate level of CA which surprised me. As expected the 85 and 135 Canon lenses so sharp they can cut steel with very low CA. It just proved that new technology isn't always better. One thing to keep in mind is it's a little more difficult to design a 1.4 wide than it is a 2.8.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
Did you have a hood on the 'cron? They've a reputation for being the most flare-prone of the Leica 50mm lenses.

As for the Summiluxes, the new 'lux is said to be darn near impossible to get to flare; the 50/1 Noctilux is much the same.
 
People who spend umpteens of dollars for Leitz (or any other "luxury good" for that matter) will never be convinced that they didn't get the best no matter what you show them to the contrary.

This is human nature - no one wants to admit (at least to others) that they have "buyers remorse".

So why bother with these comparisons?

I prefer Nikkor and have no interest in Leitz.

Others feel the opposite.

Not every circle in life can be squared.
 
You may find this link interesting. http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/index.htm

It takes a while to come up from Japan. It outlines how and why selected Nikon lenses were designed and developed. I like reading about it. There are more SLR lenses described, but there is a few rangefinder.

It shows you how serious Nikon has always been. Hundreds of ladies toiling on the abacus. Scientists constantly improving the state of the art. Their coatings were harder, the glass didn't haze as much. The Japanese researched rare earth glass formulations by dividing the task up among Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and some others. Results were to be shared so no one company would have to pay for it all.

Now their lenses, (along with Zeiss), photo lithograph, (or micrograph?), computer processors. This technology drives Moore's Law etc.
 
My recent tests of 50mm lenses for flare also resulted in seing lots of flare with the Summicron (with hood). I took the lens for cleaning, not even knowing if there is internal haze or not, as I was very surprised to see such a performance, when the Nikko 5cm/2 and the Canon 50mm lenses did better with respect to flare.
 
x-ray said:
I didn't want to sound like the summicron is a bad lens becaise it's not. It's really a fine lens and better or equal to most other lenses on the market. The Nikkor that I have is the new version not the older one and is available only in a package with the S3 2000.
Click to expand...
I know, but to some it sounds like you are. Something that they're ignoring is just how much you had to spend to get this Nikkor vs. a Summicron that is worth a few hundred dollars.

Anyway, good show. And Raid's tests also confirm what you (and many others before) have found comparing the early Summicrons. I'd like to make some tests of my own with my tabbed 'cron, Summilux, CZ 50 f/1.5 Sonnar, f/2 Sonnar, Summar, Summitar and Canon 50 f/1.2, but today my M6 and Summilux are going over to DAG to get an upgrade, so no M-mount body for me for at least a month (he can take at the very least four full weeks).

Regards.
 
Nikon and the other Japanese companies took their lenses very seriously. It's my understanding that the extremely high quality of Japanese lenses in the early 1950s, as well as their extraordinary innovation in making new lens designs, really pushed Leitz to start developing legendary lenses of its own. Up until the early 1950s, Leica was really all about the whole camera system, its smallness and portability, and the lenses were more than good enough to accomplish that, but the "Leica way" was more about a frame of mind than about having the world's sharpest image. Competition from Nikon and Canon pushed Leica to the next level.

Of course, as a longtime Nikon user -- first in 1960s and 70s SLR lenses, then in RFs which are my main cameras today -- I've always been very pleased with Nikkor quality and never felt my lenses had any serious shortcomings whatsoever, expecially in photojournalism situations, which the cameras and lenses are optimized for.
 
Most modern lenses from major manufacturers are probably good enough to do serious work. Cheap consumer-grade zoom lenses might offer some exceptions. I would not trust any comparison testing of lenses that was not based on a double-blind methodology (i.e., the people evaluating the prints or slides would not know which lens made them).
 
x-ray said:
I have always like the Nikon film bodies better than anyother and loved the 24mm 2.8 and 105 2.5. I coule not believe how well the Nikkors performed.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, the AIS 105/2.5 and 24/2.8 (any version AI'd AIS AF) are two fo the stars of the Nikon lineup. I think another hidden treasure is the AIS-E Nikkor 75-150mm / 3.5 . Build quality and optical quality of AIS, but designated an E lens, not sure why.

That said, the Canon EF 50/1.4 USM is one of the sweetest lenses around for portraiture. The bokeh at 1.4 - 2.8 is simply amazing.
 
Agree with Oldprof about double blind evaluation. Possibly because I too was a teacher and have a considerably larger grey beard than the one in his avatar. And there's the small matter of zapping subjectivity.
 
Double-blind means that the person doing the testing is also not aware of the variable (in this case which lens) being tested.

This is done mainly in clinical trials of drug effectiveness where the placebo effect is significant. If the researcher knows that he/she is administering the drug as opposed to the placebo (sugar pill) his/her manner may impart a better feeling to the patient.

Double-blind lens testing is not necessary (or practically possible.) The single-blind procedure is perfectly acceptable.

Sorry for being/sounding nit-picky! :)
 
Also, any photo to be shared publicly -- in prints, publication or online -- ends up being converted to halftone-screen dots or digital pixels or printer dots-per-inch. So at some point, more sharpness isn't nearly as important as the other characteristics of the lens, like flare control or out-of-focus effects or -- most importantly -- the photographer's actual choice of lens, viewpoint, aperature and focus point. Those are probably more important than the lens itself. That's why I don't sweat over MTF graphs.

A neighbor's daughter came over a few nights ago to show off her dress for a school dance, and I ended up taking some lovely black-and-white portraits for her parents using the camera at hand -- a Canon G1 point-and-shoot with the lens at 21mm (102mm equivalent) and a flash bounced off the living room wall.

By the way, the Nikkor 24mm AIS lens is first rate. Its the one lens I really missed when I switched over to mainly RF photography.
 
A "double-blind" experiment can be done, Frank, if the viewers of the posted photos are not told which lens was used for a speficif photo. In fact, this is my idea for my next test sequence. While I will certainly know which lenses I used, as a first step, I may just state which lenses were used in the experiemnt but no state which particular lens was used for which photo. Then maybe a week later, I will state particulars.
 
It is simply a matter of definition, the difference between single-blind and double-blind methodolgy. I may be incorrect, but my previous explanation is my understanding of the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom