WOW what a difference PART 2 images

x-ray

x-ray

Veteran
Local time
1:23 PM
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
5,744
Here are the images form my test usning the new 50mm 1.4 Nikkor RF from the S3 2000 and my tabbed version of the 50mm Summicron. The Summicron is clean with no haze and I used the shade that came with the lenses on both. The film was Delta 400 processed in Ilford HC normally. I removed the roll from my Nikon S3 and reloaded it into my MP. This eliminated film and process variations. The camera was on a tripod and no lighting or exposure was changed. I tried to compose as closely as possible in each example. I scanned the three frames in a single scan on my Fuji finescan 5000. It was scanned as a posative with a linear setup. I opened the singular scan with the three images into photoshop CS2 and made levels and curves adjustments equally to each image. I then cropped each and placed them on a layer to remove the frame lines. Each image had equal exposure, processing, scanning and levels/curves adjustments. The frame on the left is the nikkor at f 1.8. The center frame is the nikkor at f 2.5 and the right is the summicron at 2.5.

Ther's no attempt to judge anything but flare.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
Last edited:
Very interesting result.

I don't know the versions of Summicrons. Is the one you used a fairly modern lens with modern coatings? (The Nikkor has Nikon's most modern coatings).

The non-flare Nikkor images look quite a bit like what I expect from my SLR versions of the lens (which should be closely related to the lens on the S3-2000).
 
Now I`m going to break the balloon. The leica shot has just enough more of the lamp showing so the actual bulb is visable. The bulb is much brighter than the surrounding reflector.

I think the test needs a redo before conclusions can be drawn.

Now look at how much more detail there is in the window.
 
The result is quite interesting. You might think it's silly, but I like the summicron result the best. I sort of spreads the glow across larger area while Nikkor controls it in a confined area making it almost hurtful to the eyes.
 
Ummm ...
If I'm shooting a portrait at f/2.5, I Don't Want That Much Window Detail. Prefer the softer background.

I'm not convinced by the light-bulb theory either. The first shot probably has the bulb in it, too.
 
Last edited:
Actually I prefer the look of the Summicron , as far as I can judge from a monitor.
 
I shot a number of frames in two seperate tests. The results were consistant no matter how much bulb was showing. I had frames with the nikkor that showed more and some less as I did in the leica shots. My first test had frames that the bulb was showing without being obscured and the results were the same.

As to the version of summicron. It's the current formula and coatings in the previousd mount.
 
It is weird that these various tests involving Leicas and human subjects in real-world shooting environments never quite seem to ...

... oh never mind. I'm just going to go home and take pictures.
 
The first images I shot last week had the bulb with no obstruction and the results were the same. There was a ball of fuzzzzzz round the light with the summicron. I didn't use those images because there was some age fog from an older batch of film shot in one camera. The contrast was lower but the flare was there, no question. Flare is flare whether there is a person or not.

I don't think I was surprised about the flare in the summicron. What surprised me was the lack of flare in the nikkor. I didn't do this to say one lens is better than the other but to see how one handles extreme lighting conditions vs the other.

Personally I like the slightly softer rendition of the summicron in MOST but NOT ALL cases. One of my favorite lenses for my 8x10 was a 1900's vintage uncoated triple convertible zeiss protar. It had just the right amount of flare but was very sharp and covered 16x20 in the 10-1/4 inch setup. Also it stopped down to f256. Loved that lens but sold it to a friend who thought it mated to his circuit camera. I like the soft rendition from uncoated lenses when I shoot my IIIC (avitar) with uncoated 28, 50 and 90 leitz glass. I shoot on a modern remake of super XX and develope in DK-50 for a vintage look. (lovely images) I use earlier Leitz lenses becaus I dislike the harsh rendition of the new ASPH.

What makes the perfect lens is very subjective. Photography is a visual process not a bunch of MTF curves and numbers.

One last comment: Many great photographers befor us have made much greater images than I ever will with much less advanced equipment. I own an original print of the Dorthia Lange Migrant Mother and Children. The image is worth more than a thousand words with emotion. When you look at the image you see and feel the poverty and hardship of this woman. If you look very close you will see the image is out of focus. Dorthia missed the focus by a few inches. The face of the woman is soft but it's sharp a couple of inches back. My point is, while the newest and sharpest is great it's the impact of the image in the end. If the image is strong there will be few people say they don't think it's sharp enough or there is flare in it. Study the masters.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
Last edited:
x-ray said:
I own an original print of the Dorthia Lange Migrant Mother and Children. The image is worth more than a thousand words with emotion. When you look at the image you see and feel the poverty and hardship of this woman. If you look very close you will see the image is out of focus. Dorthia missed the focus by a few inches. The face of the woman is soft but it's sharp a couple of inches back. My point is, while the newest and sharpest is great it's the impact of the image in the end. If the image is strong there will be few people say they don't think it's sharp enough or there is flare in it.
Click to expand...


Thats interesting, I've seen that picture hundreds of times (as everyone else has I guess) and I never noticed, as you say the subject is more important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good points, x-ray. A lot of times we get hung up on the gear. Ideally, the gear we use should be invisible to the viewer of the final image.
 
thanks, x-ray. I don't think this is about (as you say,) which is better. I like a lot of things I see with the Nikkor, but the Summicron could find a home with me, too. Overall, I prefer the Nikkor in these shots, but that's not a "it's best" statement.
 
Thanks for the effort, x-ray!

While the test formally refers to flare, I couldn't help but notice the OOF background. Even at the small size, cross-eyed Nikon boke is evident - yuck. It seems the Olympia 50 is where Nikon took the "Wrong Path". :) The S3-2000 kit is entering the sweet spot, price-wise, but I wish they had revived the "crappy" Sonnar optic!
 
Nice test x-ray. Flare suppression is quite superior to the current Summicron formula especially around the top edge of the reflector. Note how much darker the top of the reflector appear with the Nikkor. The OOF areas don't look much different than the Summicron and I'm sure a modern 50/1.4 Nikkor would be even worse.
 
Thanks for posting these x-ray its useful to see the lack of flare in the Nikkor i'll bear this in mind when shooting with it next month. Are you going to pursue other tests with these lenses? like OOF qualities?
OT but the original lenshood for the Nikkor is very cumbersome and intrudes well into the 50 framelines i swapped it for a 43 vented one.
Your comment:

>My point is, while the newest and sharpest is great it's the impact of the image in the end. If >the image is strong there will be few people say they don't think it's sharp enough or there is >flare in it.

is very well made.

Frank
that photo.net link didn't load would you be kind enough to post it again?
Thanks

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom