View Full Version : Wow what a difference in Leica and Nikkor glass
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
Go to advanced posting and there upload photos.
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.
Gabriel M.A.
01-17-2006, 19:48
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.
Here is one of the test shots (from the gallery taken with a Summicron Rigid First version (with a hood) @ f 2.0:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24319&cat=500&ppuser=3565
... and here is a test shot taken with a Nikkor 5cm/2 @ f 2.0 (with hood):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24318&cat=500&ppuser=3565
Gabriel M.A.
01-18-2006, 06:02
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.
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).
Flyfisher Tom
01-18-2006, 06:54
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.
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.
What should one expect pay for an optically scratch-free 50mm f2 Nikkor, in Leica screwmount?
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.
Please see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=double-blind
also see the single-blind lnk
You have to do some mental manipulations to apply it to lens testing.
xayraa33
01-18-2006, 10:39
What should one expect pay for an optically scratch-free 50mm f2 Nikkor, in Leica screwmount?
$150 USD and higher depending on condition , late black ring ones bring in more, these are all non - collapsable 50mm/f2s. The early collapsable ones go for $700 USD and higher, again depending on condition.
BrianShaw
01-18-2006, 10:56
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! :)
Frank,
Sorry to be nit-picky... but here is the definition of double-blind and single-blind:
"In a single-blind experiment, the individual subjects do not know whether they are so-called "test" subjects or members of an "experimental control" group. In such a trial there is a risk that subjects are influenced by interaction with the researchers - known as the experimenter effect.
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group. Only after all the data are recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) may researchers be permitted to learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results."
But, as you said... only a single-blind experimental protocol is required for equipment testing. Unless, however, one thinks the lens might be biased if it knew who was testing it ;-)
Sorry for being/sounding nit-picky! :)
I love it when three bearded respectable professors have an argument!
I think I'll side with you - bear with me for a few days while I grow my own beard. :D
BrianShaw
01-18-2006, 11:21
I love it when three bearded respectable professors have an argument!
I think I'll side with you - bear with me for a few days while I grow my own beard. :D
I love it even more when the bearded professors argue... and are all arguing the same opinion!
I also said that some mental manipulation is needed to apply the definition to lens testing.
With single blind methodology, only the test subjects (viewers of the lens test results) are unaware of which lens produced which result. (That's the idea after all so that biases won't influence preferences.)
With double blind methodology, the test subjects (viewers of the lens test results) and the experimenters (those conducting the lens tests) are unaware of which lens they are testing. (That's just silly.)
BrianShaw
01-18-2006, 11:25
Yup... no disagreement.
Frank: Your stated definition is correct, and I just revamped the definition for our purposes here.
Good. Just to summarize then, when conducting lens tests, it is not with a double-blind methodology since that would mean that the testers/experimenters are unaware of what they are testing.
The test may be single-blind where the viewers of the results are not aware of which lens was used for each result, and they must state preferences without that knowledge.
Or the test may show the results with the lens info (as we have done here so far) and viewers may be influenced by their biases (say , pro-Leica) when stating their preferences.
$150 USD and higher depending on condition , late black ring ones bring in more, these are all non - collapsable 50mm/f2s. The early collapsable ones go for $700 USD and higher, again depending on condition.
Thank you, sir. I loathe collapsibles from a practical standpoint. I'll look for a rigid one.
The prices seem to vary because of low turnover and sporadic demand, and I don't follow LTM prices too closely. But around $300 would seem to be past the upper limit of reasonable. You can often get an old Tower or other screwmount camera attached to the f/2 Nikkor for that amount or a bit more.
xayraa33
01-18-2006, 15:48
the 50mm/f2 Nikkor LTM is a fine lens, I have an example of its use in my gallery,they do come up for sale on that auction site very often.
Single blind, double blind, quadruple blind ... I still haven't seen any of x-rays photos which illustrate the original post. Or am I all blind?
Gabriel M.A.
01-18-2006, 16:23
And I thought a double-blind test went something along these lines ;) :
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/scr0084l.jpg
(found at cartoonstock.com via google)
And I thought a double-blind test went something along these lines ;) :
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/scr0084l.jpg
Hey, I know that guy, he does the eye tests at the motor vehicle bureau! :D
Single blind, double blind, quadruple blind ... I still haven't seen any of x-rays photos which illustrate the original post. Or am I all blind?
I had a full schedule today and will be on a business trip untill monday. When I return I will reshoot the test wit the same batch of film and run it, scan the two in the same scan and post them.
Please don't get me wrong, I love the Summicron. I've made some great images with it and it's no less of a great lens because the Nikkor has less flare. It's not like 50% more but there was a noticable difference.
I really don't think I have a bias as to lens or camera maker. I've ownes so many systems over the past 40+ years as a professional. I've always loved some of the Nikkor glass (24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 50mm micro, 85mm 1.8 (old version), 105 2.5 (old version) and the 180mm 2.8 ( any version). There are others like the 35mm f2 and 24mm f2 plus a few others that I never felt were more than average. The same is with Leica. I've never had a love for the 28mm's or tele elmarits although they are good lenses. However I love my 90mm 1st version Elmarit and later versions of the 35mm f2 Summicron. I particularly loved my 35mm 1.4 Summilux first version and 21mm 3.4 Super-Angulon. I liked the 21 SA over my 21 Elmarit. I wouldn't say these lenses were sharper than the others but had a special character or quality that I love. I don't own any of the new ASPH lenses because I feel they're too harsh and I like the character or personality of the older glass.
To me what makes a superior lens is a combination and proper balance of characteristics of a lens. Contrast doesn't have to be extremely high and resolution doesn't have to be super sharp. To me it's all in the balance of sharpness, contrast and illumination fall off as in the 21mm SA.
I feel the same about my canon glass. Some of it's outstanding and some average
My little informal test hasn't burst my bubble about my 50mm Summicron. It still makes stunning images.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
I would be curious how the CV Nokton 50mm 1.5 would compare. Any experiences shooting into strong light sources? Anyone have a late summicron and 50mm Nokton?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
x-ray: No problem, I was just curious to see the images. Your gallery is wonderful, no matter what lens, so I understanding what you're saying.
21mm SA? Sigh. I owned one and used it on an M3. It was great. The Zuiko 21/f2 was different but "equally" special for me. Still have that one.
Earl
dreamsandart
01-18-2006, 19:10
The first Leitz/Leica lens I owned was a 50 Summicron DR, beautifully made, but the lighter weight of the '69' 11817 version that focused to 27" without the extra eyes has been my main 50 now for 30 years. Although the 11817 is well made its not 'glamorous' by Leica standards, but still I find myself fairly regularly amazed at the image quality that comes from this classic late 60s glass. I've also owned the original collapsable 1st version, and the one 'flaw' in all 3 Summicron 50/60s designs would be the 'veiled flare' that can cover the whole frame under certain strong direct light on the front element, with each generation handling it better than the last.
I've also used a Summilux over this time and in contrast handles strong light on the front element very well.
As for my Nikkor experience I've used a late 50s 50mm f1.4 LTM and 35mm f2.5 that are some of the sharpest lenses I've used, handle flare very well and are also very compact and superbly made. 'Ideal' LTM lenses [on a M-series also] and as good as the Leica Lenses in many ways.
The one criticism about 50 Nikkor glass is that compared to the Leitz glass it is just not as 'smooth' looking - talking bokeh here. It can look very 50s/60s classic, but its quirk are those times with certain highlights - usually in daylight and wide open, (slow film and high shutter, hay I like bokeh :-) - when the background turns to 'fried doughnut rings'. Nikkor glass from the rangefinder days was considered great stuff back then, I don't think anyone - that knew - thought it inferior to Leica glass, and in the LTM days at least the 50 f1.4 lens was thought of as 'the best fast lens' around.
Glass from Leitz and Nikkor have their weaknesses and strengths, both are great fun to use.
Trius:
I'm not one to set up rulers and test targets. I just shoot with the gear and make pictures. I just happened to have bought the S3 to satisfy my college lust for a Nikon RF and my wonderful sweet wife talked me into giving myself a red leather, over the top, MP for being a good boy (I guess? Got her fooled!). I mainly wanted to see how the two felt side by side and stuck a few lenses on. It really didn't start as a lens test untill I saw the difference in the 50's.
I've just found some lenses over the years that I've fallen in love with. It's hard to put into words and might just be the images themselves rather than the performance of the lens. I look back at images I've shot and think man that was a fun shoot, what lens was that I used. It might just be the association of the experience with the lens that I was using. Sounds like some of that stoned 60's BS doesn't it? Anyway I think ther's something about some of the vintage glass that can't be improved on. I've actually been thinking about selling my 21 Elmarit and 35 4th summicron and getting a clean 21 3.4 and 35 1st summilux again. It's kind of like the old country store, when they're around you don't think about them and never think about them going away untill they're gone. I had a 50 1.2 noctilux and didn't fully appreciate it untill I sold it and couldn't touch one again because of collectors driving the price up.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
x-ray: I'm with you all the way. I keep my XAs for much the same reason. I have a couple of great shots from the XA, the memories are wonderful. I don't think I'll ever give up the Zuiko 21, except that when my body ceases it will go to my daughter who is learning to shoot with an OM-2 and a couple of lenses.
It's not 60s BS. It's just the way it is.
Gabriel M.A.
01-18-2006, 19:28
Glass from Leitz and Nikkor have their weaknesses and strengths, both are great fun to use.
Hear hear! My feelings exactly. They all have their weaknesses and strengths. Discovering by ourselves or via others' tests what these are can only help us improve our craft.
Thanks, Frank. I momentarily forgot that around 1980 I helped a university department of pharmacology with drug trials. There's plenty of nits to be found in large beards, of course.
[EDIT] Didn't see how far this thing had gone. Can we not just speak of having two dozen people state their opinions of two dozen pictures without knowing which lenses were used? Straight talk is much to be preferred: in teaching, in law, on RFF.... I should say, before someone pounces on me, that there's nothing sacrosanct about two dozen.
I wholeheartedly agree with the earlier statement about the 1950s Nikkor 50/1.4 -- while very, very sharp, it can have unpleasing and distracting out-of-focus areas. I've used this lens daily (along with other Nikkor RFs) for more than 15 years, and that's something I don't like about it. The "bokeh" shows "doubled" lines and highlights and can look very busy. Not so much wide open, but when closed down a stop or two, the place where you're usually using the lens. It also has considerable light fall-off when wide open and focused on something distant.
A great lens, but flawed (as all great things can be).
I don't think I'll ever give up the Zuiko 21, except that when my body ceases it will go to my daughter who is learning to shoot with an OM-2 and a couple of lenses.
I hope youre talking about your camera body?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
I wholeheartedly agree with the earlier statement about the 1950s Nikkor 50/1.4 -- while very, very sharp, it can have unpleasing and distracting out-of-focus areas. I've used this lens daily (along with other Nikkor RFs) for more than 15 years, and that's something I don't like about it. The "bokeh" shows "doubled" lines and highlights and can look very busy. Not so much wide open, but when closed down a stop or two, the place where you're usually using the lens. It also has considerable light fall-off when wide open and focused on something distant.
A great lens, but flawed (as all great things can be).
How would you judge Bokeh with the Nikkor 5cm/2 ?
Is it different from Bokeh with a Nikkor 5cm/1.4 ?
>>How would you judge Bokeh with the Nikkor 5cm/2 ?
Is it different from Bokeh with a Nikkor 5cm/1.4 ?<<
I've never used one. But everything I've seen (mainly on this site over the past year or so) indicates that the f/2's bokeh is different and much more pleasing than the f/1.4. I know that's the case with my SLR lenses ... The 1960s f/1.4 lens is a different formula than the Sonnar-derived Rf lens and tames a lot of the harsh line-doubling. But the f/2 SLR lens is much creamier and smoother. I need the extra stop and so seldom used the f/2 SLR lens.
Attaching a pic that shows very busy bokeh at probably f/2.
The 1950s 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor-S.
I hope youre talking about your camera body?
Naw, I meant when my eyes fail or I die. I love my daughter to pieces, but she can't have my 21/2 until I am not capable of using it. :angel:
Earl
I like the 5cm/2 lens more and more as I compare its overall performance. I paid about $200 for my lens, but I think it is worth the money.
Simon Larbalestier
01-20-2006, 22:53
X-ray
i shoot with the new Nikkor 1.4 alongside an early Lux
posted below are two examples left side Lux @1.4 right side Nikkor 1.4 both at 1/30 @1.4 focussed at 1 m.
It's been interesting to read reviews of this lens in recent posts over the last few months as no one has really written much about the S32000 or its "new" lens since it came out in 2000.
I hope you enjoy using it as much as i do!
Simon
Today I reshot the test with my tabbed 50 summicron and my new 50 1.4 nikkor RF. I shot at the same exposure and lighting, with a hood rewound the film and reloaded it in the second camera. All exposures were the same. I deceided to split the roll to eliminate film and process error. Tomorrow morning I have a little free time so I will scan the two negs in the same scan side by side on my fuji finescan 5000 which will eliminate scanning variations. I'll post the results and let you be the judge.
Simon Larbalestier
01-23-2006, 19:54
I look forward to seeing these x-ray - did you vary the apertures? I'm still curious about the Nikkor when shot at 1.4 sometimes its almost too sharp for me if that makes any sense - perhaps its a matter of visual taste.
Simon
I feel the same about my canon glass. Some of it's outstanding and some average
Hi, I just bought a Canon P. Which Canon lenses do you like?
I'll chime in with my praise for your photos as well, lovely! They are images that I could not grow tired of.
Beniliam
01-23-2006, 21:58
Simon, the 2 photo that you posted are terribles...
daveozzz
01-24-2006, 02:33
I just looked at your website Simon... have to say I'm slightly starstruck that you did the Pixies photographs! That's made my day...:)
Simon Larbalestier
01-24-2006, 02:54
Thanks daveozzz it's nice to make someone else's day!
Simon
Every direct comparison I've seen between the new Nikkor and new Sumicron shows them to be nearly equally matched. Slight subjective differences but no real advantage to either lens.
Is it possible to write the FORTRAN code using WordStar's nondocument-file mode?
Gabriel M.A.
02-28-2007, 02:30
Now I'm going to have to compute some Histograms of the Millenium Nikkor vs the Menopta. I'll have to write it in FORTRAN to preserve my Minimalist approach to Photoshop. We'll have to see how flat those curves are.
Why not write it in LOGO? ;)
Can some Fortran code be written to wake up Ray and have him post the last test results? :D
Sorry I didn't get aroud to posting the images and guess they have been taken hostage by the elves that hide my things. The last year has been one of the busiest in my studios history of 23 years. Good for me but this plus promoting my x-ray art and documentary work has taken all but tiny bits of my time. Oh yes, my wife gets all the rest of my time. I guess I will have to take some time soon and re test but I have since sold the 50 summicron. The good news is I have the new asph summilux and a new Zeiss Planar 50 to test with it.
Ray: Thanks for all your contributions here. Certainly you get no pay (except sometimes you get grief ;) ) ... your wife has priority over RFF.
Brian: Thanks to you, too. I think all these lens choices make me glad I'm broke, I spose. LOL.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.