View Full Version : First Results: Test of Fifteen 50mm Lenses
Hi,
The test is a comparison of my own lenses [and some loaners] and it may not necessarily reflect results applicable to every lens of these types.
I have tested the following lenses:
FSU:
1. J-3
2. J-8
3. Industrar 61L
4. Industrar 50mm/3.5 rigid
Japan:
5. Canon 50/1.2
6. Canon 50mm/1.4 ............... from Mark.
7. Canon 50mm/1.5 ............... from Mark.
8. Canon 50/1.8
9. Nikon 50/2
10. Nikon 50mm/1.4 (separate camera and test) ............ from Kiu.
Germany:
11. Summicron rigid first version
12. Summicron Collapsible
13. Elmar 5cm/3.5
14. Zeiss 5cm/2
15. Summitar
16. Summarit
I started out with a test that Ted (ampguy) insisted on. It was a time consuming focusing test with markers set at 2 inches, 3 inches and 4 inches in front of the focus target and behind it. Ted will let us know why I did this test :bang:
To get more out of this test, I arranged a light source for comparing bokeh effect. I feel that sharpness can also be compared.
I used a lens hood for each camera. This was a pain in the ....
Anyways, I use the same set-up as in my last two tests. A Bessa T with Ilford XP2 Super film, stabilized on a tripod and used with a cable release. Results can now be compared to my earlier tests.
Old link: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20666
I posted the images on PN to allow side by side viewing of over 30 images.
The lenses with max aperture 1.5 or faster were tested at 1.5/2.0/4.0.
Lenses with max aperture 1.8~2.0 were tested at 2.0/4.0
Lenses with max aperture2.8~3.5 were tested at 4.0.
Let me know what you can conclude from this first test. I can see winners very clearly. A pattern is emerging quickly.
Once I complete all testing, I will have a roll of film on the Nikon 50mm/1.4 currently in Kiu's Nikon S2 camera.
I have placed a label with information on lens used and aperture setting for each image. I have also labeled the scanned image so that when you place the cursor over a photo, you will see the information displayed.
Raid
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=669440
================================================== =
edited: Here are the links for the tests:
1. B&W Focusing Test of Most 50mm Lenses in the Test:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=669440
2. Color Test of Lenses at 4.0
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=670650
3. Color Test of Lenses at 2.0
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671321
4. Color Test of Lenses at 1.4-1.5
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671339
5. Canon 50mm/0.95 on Canon 7s at 0.95
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=672398
6.Nikkor 50mm/1.4on Nikon S2
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=672453
7. Second Roll with the Canon 50mm/0.95
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=674636
8. Nikkor 50mm/1.1
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679532
9. Nokton Prominent/Nikkor 50/1.4 for the S3/Zeiss Tessar 50mm/3.5
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679553
10. Leitz Noctilux (hand-held)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679571
11. Nokton Prominent LTM/Zeiss Jena 50mm/1.5/ Zeiss C-Sonnar
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679915
12. Noctilux
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=683401
Raid, another great test. I have quickly looked over the displayed photos, and I agree with your statement that certain lenses really stand out above the others at first glance. One lense was a surprisingly good performer, another surprisingly weak. I have a short list of favorites, but want to do some more examination before posting my choices. Thanks again!
I am impressed by the overall qualities of these vinatge 50mm lenses. Unlike a comparison of modern lenses, there will fewer RFF members taking sides strongly. Maybe this has to do with people spending top Dollars on a new lens, and they want to believe that they got the "best lens". With vintage lenses I think that it is more a mood you are looking for. Maybe it is called a "signature", but I think of it as a mood that a lens gives you.
Learn from the images with labels because the next test will have no lables.
I wonder what we really are comparing in this test. Knowing the factors tested will help us identify and understand differences better.
I focused on the Zeiss paper boxes (on the plus sign). Note that the markers behind the focus point are in focus but the markers in front of the focus point are out of focus. Is this something to expect from the hyperfocal distances or is it a "result"?
Raid
I think that test proves how difficult it is to get a 50mm lens that's truly sharp at f2, at least among older lenses.
I was surprised that the collapsible summicron was sharper than the Rigid at f2, and at how well the Elmar/Industar 3.5's performed at f4.
THANKS for performing the test Raid! :)
I was also surprised at how good a performer the Canon 1.2 is, being sharp even at 1.4.
The J8 has a really nice look to it, but the I61L was a big disappointment IMO.
The J3 also impressed me.
I also preferred the Elmar 3.5 to the Industar 3.5 but there isn't a lot in it.
The Canon 1.8 looks like an excellent lens for so little money.
Wow! Excellent testing Raid. The text reveals sharpness and contrast, and the glass highlights of the cabinet showcases the OOF characteristics. Perfect.
All hail the new King of 50's!
Gabriel M.A.
11-29-2006, 18:52
I am impressed by the overall qualities of these vinatge 50mm lenses. Unlike a comparison of modern lenses, there will fewer RFF members taking sides strongly. Maybe this has to do with people spending top Dollars on a new lens, and they want to believe that they got the "best lens".I agree with that remark. But I am equally happy with a good picture taken with my Summarit, my "expensive" Summilux, and my "cheap" Sonnar.
BTW, I still can't get to the lens test. :(
I agree with that remark. But I am equally happy with a good picture taken with my Summarit, my "expensive" Summilux, and my "cheap" Sonnar.
BTW, I still can't get to the lens test. :(
Gabriel: Why can't you get to the lens test? Must you be a member of PN to see the results?
Raid
Wow! Excellent testing Raid. The text reveals sharpness and contrast, and the glass highlights of the cabinet showcases the OOF characteristics. Perfect.
All hail the new King of 50's!
Frank: Thanks! You have to be the King of the 50's.
Raid
I was also surprised at how good a performer the Canon 1.2 is, being sharp even at 1.4.
The J8 has a really nice look to it, but the I61L was a big disappointment IMO.
The J3 also impressed me.
I also preferred the Elmar 3.5 to the Industar 3.5 but there isn't a lot in it.
The Canon 1.8 looks like an excellent lens for so little money.
i'm familiar with the Jupiters but i just wanna ask, are these Canon lenses screw mount? if they are, they should easily fit a Fed or screw mount Leicas correct?
thanks.
i'm familiar with the Jupiters but i just wanna ask, are these Canon lenses screw mount? if they are, they should easily fit a Fed or screw mount Leicas correct?
thanks.
Yes, all the Canon lenses here are screwmount lenses that can be used on any Leica camera and of course on FSU cameras that accept the Leica screwmount lenses.
Raid
Hi Raid, great test. To my eyes, it looks like many of your FSU lenses are front focusing more than say the Canons, except for the J3 which looks semi focused, others like the Zeiss lens looks way out of focus to my eyes. What distance was your film plane to the subject you were focusing on?
I'm glad that you put the markers for focus, I really appreciate it.
wlewisiii
11-29-2006, 20:38
I was surprised that the collapsible summicron was sharper than the Rigid at f2.
Actually, I wasn't all that surprised. I've got a collapsible that is scuffed & beat & just plain abused, yet it blows away every other lens I've _ever_ used. (Joe, you really should have had this one fixed. It's really that good.) I still expect - and this test helps - to get a Canon 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 eventually, but that's for the speed. Anywhere f2 is appropriate, it's going to be this collapsible 'cron. Around here, I'm known as a major Tessar/Sonnar nut. And while I still love that look, the reality is that I've always gone for the old 'cron fast enough that I sold my Canon 50/1.8 (and it was an excellent sample of that lens) because I just didn't use it after I got that collapsible back from DAG.
I hope this is helpful.
William
Hi Raid, great test. To my eyes, it looks like many of your FSU lenses are front focusing more than say the Canons, except for the J3 which looks semi focused, others like the Zeiss lens looks way out of focus to my eyes. What distance was your film plane to the subject you were focusing on?
I'm glad that you put the markers for focus, I really appreciate it.
Ted: The distance is about 1.5 meters. To my eyes, the Zeiss lens focuses well. DAG gave it a complete CLA plus shimming.
Raid
b/w the collapsible and the rigid cron you can see that the location of the identification of the lens is different but the actual Zeiss boxes are not.
The main diff I see b/w these two lenses is the contrast offered by the rigid vs the collapsible.
This, of course, does depend on the fact that contrast can be adjusted via post processing when scanning but in print these may not exhibit the same behaviour.
Excellent tests Raid - as usual the community owes you a big one for going through all this trouble just to appease our sometimes morbid curiosity :D
Dave
great test !! thanks! now i am convinced - that J3 really is great lens. i like his wide open samples best. Summicron Collapsible also gave great results. Summitar and zeis are disappointing to me.
Of course, tastes differ. What I get out of these tests is that everyone of these old lenses can provide ample sharpness at f4 for day to day photography. I see the main difference in how highlights are handled, some render them as if there's a diffusion filter over the highlights. The Summarit50/1.5 (@f4) and Sonnar50/2 (@f2) are most pronounced here. Is this the 'glow'?
Anyway, hats off to Raid for conducting a test like this in such a structured way!
NIKON KIU
11-30-2006, 01:28
OK...You want sharp? wait untill you see what the 55 year old Nikkor(untested) can do!!
I am still willing to expand this test....I will send Raid My Nikkor 1.1 and my millenium Nikkor if someone volunteers a Canon .95,Leica 1 OH(as chris weeks puts it) or even a Cosina 1.5!!
This is an arm twisting offer, I'll pay for return shipping!!
Kiu
Pherdinand
11-30-2006, 01:41
Funny:
Your test indicates the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 being considerably worse than the Jupiter-8.
As i mentioned earlier in the first thread, I expected them to be exactly the same if both in good condition:) That statement was somewhat a surprise to a few people. Now this result is... Surprise-surprise!
Good work Raid. I have no idea which I prefer so far, but the differences are interesting to see.
Ian
OK...You want sharp? wait untill you see what the 55 year old Nikkor(untested) can do!!
I am still willing to expand this test....I will send Raid My Nikkor 1.1 and my millenium Nikkor if someone volunteers a Canon .95,Leica 1 OH(as chris weeks puts it) or even a Cosina 1.5!!
This is an arm twisting offer, I'll pay for return shipping!!
Kiu
Kiu: Mark has offered me to test his Canon 50/0.95! Will you mail me your lenses now?
Raid
Please note that my Zeiss Sonnar is most likely a pre-war version that mechanically looks bad but optically looks great according to DAG [and me] who three times worked on this lens.
Raid
Summarit @ f4 shot is very front focused.
The zeiss at f2 is simply out of focus.
Funny:
Your test indicates the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 being considerably worse than the Jupiter-8.
As i mentioned earlier in the first thread, I expected them to be exactly the same if both in good condition:) That statement was somewhat a surprise to a few people. Now this result is... Surprise-surprise!
DAG adjusted the lens for me, so this is a surprise.
Raid
assuming your vision and camera system (mount, film plane distances, vf/rf system) are perfect, while theres a slight chance of a minor collimation thing going on, I think it may also be this:
When you focus, can you not turn or nudge the focus nut or barrel or lever a "smidgeon" (1 deg or so) either way, and it's still in focus?
My lenses, even when tripod mounted and I spend minutes composing, are sometimes slightly off so sometimes I will "bracket" moving that smidgeon of play back and forth (especially if digital). I would hazard a guess that if you focused as you normally do, then move some of those a smidgeon, the least possible movement possible, towards infinity, you might be closer to center focus on your subject, all the while with the images still being perfectly focused in the RF/VF.
HOWEVER, since you're using film, and this is time consuming and expensive, PLEASE don't do it for me, only if you are interested in more center focusing your subject yourself.
DAG adjusted the lens for me, so this is a surprise.
Raid
like2fiddle
11-30-2006, 09:23
It's hard not to like that Canon 1.5. My Summitar gives me a little more detail wide open than the test Summitar did.
Great test Raid! Thanks for taking the time to do this. As for results, it is nice to see two of my recent purchases (J-3 and Canon 50/1.4) performing so well.
I too am impressed by the Canon 50/1.5.
The zeiss at f2 is simply out of focus.
Ted and Roland: So this could be due to my focusing and it is not a problematic issue with the lens. Right?
Raid
The Canon 1.5 is a great lens. And sharper than people usually give it credit for.
Roland.
Roland: I expected it to be softer than the Canon 50/1.4, but it is not. You have build up additional support for your beloved Sonnar!
Raid
assuming your vision and camera system (mount, film plane distances, vf/rf system) are perfect, while theres a slight chance of a minor collimation thing going on, I think it may also be this:
When you focus, can you not turn or nudge the focus nut or barrel or lever a "smidgeon" (1 deg or so) either way, and it's still in focus?
My lenses, even when tripod mounted and I spend minutes composing, are sometimes slightly off so sometimes I will "bracket" moving that smidgeon of play back and forth (especially if digital). I would hazard a guess that if you focused as you normally do, then move some of those a smidgeon, the least possible movement possible, towards infinity, you might be closer to center focus on your subject, all the while with the images still being perfectly focused in the RF/VF.
HOWEVER, since you're using film, and this is time consuming and expensive, PLEASE don't do it for me, only if you are interested in more center focusing your subject yourself.
Ted: It is fortunate that I have already done two tests on most of my 50mm lenses, including the sharp Nikon 50/2 and the highly acceptable Zeiss lens. Both lenses did well in earlier tests, so this may be my [human] error of getting bored after testing many lenses at different aperture settings. If I had the time, I would shoot an entireroll with each of these two lenses, which happen to be among my favorite 50mm lenses.
Don at DAG made sure that the Zeiss focused accuratelyand he also cleaned it. The Nikon always was sharp and accurate in focusing it wide open. It also came out as the front runner in the earlier test for flare resistance.
I will take extra care with focusing in the next part of this test, and especially with any lens that showed surprisingly low performance in the first focusing test.
Raid
I expected it to be softer than the Canon 50/1.4, but it is not.
It is, however, softer than the pre-aspherical Summilux 50 wide-open. And of course, the oof look differs quite a bit. Magus would likely say "entirely different" :D
...and here are the 100% crops.
See if you can tell which is which. No fair if I label them for you! ;)
Akk! :bang:
I see that if you roll your cursor over the image the name pops up, and the surprise is ruined.
Just click and look. No fair cheating! :D
Roland: With 11~12 shots taken at 2.0, it should be then expected to get two shots off; the Nikon and the Zeiss :-)
Raid
...and here are the 100% crops.
See if you can tell which is which. No fair if I label them for you! ;)
Kevin: These photos are from your test, so why don't you tell us what you have concluded regarding these two Canon lenses?
edited: Canon and Leitz lenses.
Raid
Hi Raid, Sorry to jump on your post, but I thought the info on the Canon 50 f1.5 was relevant. :)
The two shots I posted are from the Canon 50/1.5 and the pre-asph Summilux 50. Both wide open, near close-focus limit for each. (If you roll your cursor over the small images, you'll see the file names, and that tells you which is which.)
Wide open, the Leica is sharper at the center and has more contrast than the Canon. I also think it renders color more accurately, the Canon being slightly 'cool.' I also prefer the Leica's oof drawing, as it has a more natural look to my eye. The Leica improves very quickly stopped down, with noticeable improvement by f1.7. I find it to be a very pleasant lens overall, with a very 'natural' look to its imaging. The Canon's signature sonnar look is less appealing to me.
The Canon is only technically 'worse' than the 'lux wide open, though. Every other difference is a either matter of taste in imagining, or handling ergonomics. The Canon is an outstanding lens for being 50 years old. I'm half-tempted to get something like a IIIf Leica to use it with.
I still think the pre-asph Summilux 50 is Leica's best-ever 'people' lens, though, despite its detractors and even compared to the new Aspherical 50. The only stop where I feel it can be described as technically weak is f1.4. Again, by f1.7 it improves noticeably. (FWIW, I keep an 8x ND filter in my bag so I can shoot between f2.0 and f4.0 with this lens for wedding work. ) If you shoot landscapes, or subject matter that benefits from a flatter field and a more highly corrected look, and your female subjects are all under 25 with perfect skin, then a Summicron 50 or the new Asph have advantages, of course. Horses for courses, and all that. :D
Roland, that's much better than I can do, probably 50% of my up close wide open shots are out of focus, which is why the R-D1 may pay for itself faster than with other folks who focus better.
Raid, If I attempted what you did with those sequential test shots, I would have been much more off and would have gone through many rolls to get even as good of focusing as you did.
Maybe yes, Raid. Nikkors are usually very well collimated and you used this lens before, so I assume it is user error.
Happens to me all the time with a 50 wide open and close up, also on the M3 (20% of the shots or so).
Roland.
Hi Raid, Sorry to jump on your post, but I thought the info on the Canon 50 f1.5 was relevant. :)
The two shots I posted are from the Canon 50/1.5 and the pre-asph Summilux 50. Both wide open, near close-focus limit for each. (If you roll your cursor over the small images, you'll see the file names, and that tells you which is which.)
Wide open, the Leica is sharper at the center and has more contrast than the Canon. I also think it renders color more accurately, the Canon being slightly 'cool.' I also prefer the Leica's oof drawing, as it has a more natural look to my eye. The Leica improves very quickly stopped down, with noticeable improvement by f1.7. I find it to be a very pleasant lens overall, with a very 'natural' look to its imaging. The Canon's signature sonnar look is less appealing to me.
The Canon is only technically 'worse' than the 'lux wide open, though. Every other difference is a either matter of taste in imagining, or handling ergonomics. The Canon is an outstanding lens for being 50 years old. I'm half-tempted to get something like a IIIf Leica to use it with.
I still think the pre-asph Summilux 50 is Leica's best-ever 'people' lens, though, despite its detractors and even compared to the new Aspherical 50. The only stop where I feel it can be described as technically weak is f1.4. Again, by f1.7 it improves noticeably. (FWIW, I keep an 8x ND filter in my bag so I can shoot between f2.0 and f4.0 with this lens for wedding work. ) If you shoot landscapes, or subject matter that benefits from a flatter field and a more highly corrected look, and your female subjects are all under 25 with perfect skin, then a Summicron 50 or the new Asph have advantages, of course. Horses for courses, and all that. :D
Kevin: Do you consider the pre-asph Summilux to be a vintage lens? :bang:
Thanks for your additional information, but we left out any "modern" lenses from this test. Nobody is making claims beyond the lenses included in the test.
Regards,
Raid
Roland, that's much better than I can do, probably 50% of my up close wide open shots are out of focus, which is why the R-D1 may pay for itself faster than with other folks who focus better.
Raid, If I attempted what you did with those sequential test shots, I would have been much more off and would have gone through many rolls to get even as good of focusing as you did.
Ted: I used up one roll of film, so the cost is minimal. I double and triple checked each shot ... maybe only "most of the shots"!
As for the RD-1, I opt for not using a digital camera because my liking is for film based cameras. It has little to do with practicality or usefulness.
Kevin: I really thank you for taking the time to offer useful information, but let's leave discussions limited to the vintage lenses included in this test. Else, we have no end in sight for opinions and comments. I opened the door for everybody to send me their vintage 50mm lenses if they wanted to, so this way I ended up with a nice collection of 50mm lenses. Thanks.
Raid
Kevin: Do you consider the pre-asph Summilux to be a vintage lens?
In some ways, yes. It's the same optical formula as the original Summilux, isn't it? Only the coatings and the close focus distance have changed over the years. And I compared it directly to a lens involved in your test, the Canon 50 f1.5, so it seems highly relevant to me. It's not as if I compared it to an Apherical 50 Summilux! ;)
Nice shot, Roland. Hard to believe it's a 50 year old lens, isn't it?
I didn't get specific about ergonomics, but it is a very compact lens. Dense as hell, but compact. Much smaller than the Summilux 50.
I agree that it sharpens up a LOT stopped down. The attached pic is f2.8 under very overcast skies...my daughter's trying to beat me on the draw. :D Full frame, mild sharpening only. (She's got the Bessa L with the VC 21.)
Kevin: I mistakenly assumed that your Summilux was a "new lens". If it is considered a vintage lens, then of course your comments are useful and relevant here.
Regards,
Raid
Nice shot, Roland. Hard to believe it's a 50 year old lens, isn't it?
I didn't get specific about ergonomics, but it is a very compact lens. Dense as hell, but compact. Much smaller than the Summilux 50.
I agree that it sharpens up a LOT stopped down. The attached pic is f2.8 under very overcast skies...my daughter's trying to beat me on the draw. :D Full frame, mild sharpening only. (She's got the Bessa L with the VC 21.)
Wow, Kevin, I really like the 3-dimensionality of that shot of your daughter. Makes me want to grab my Canon 50/1.5 and go shooting! Roland influenced me to buy this lens and your comments and shot are showing me why Roland feels so strongly about the virtues of this lens.
Thanks,
Randy
P.S. Oh, and before I forget, thank you very much, Raid, for all the hard work in putting together this great lens comparison for us all to enjoy and learn from.
I just found out[pointed out to me at PN] that by mistake I had left out posting the results at 4.0 for both Summicron lenses. I have added the two shots now.
Raid
Nice shot, Roland. Hard to believe it's a 50 year old lens, isn't it?
I didn't get specific about ergonomics, but it is a very compact lens. Dense as hell, but compact. Much smaller than the Summilux 50.
I agree that it sharpens up a LOT stopped down. The attached pic is f2.8 under very overcast skies...my daughter's trying to beat me on the draw. :D Full frame, mild sharpening only. (She's got the Bessa L with the VC 21.)
Kevin: I have to agree that your shot of your daughter is great looking. How old is she?
Raid
Thanks Raid, she's 5 1/2, and a very patient model. :)
Here's a shot she grabbed of me putting the polarizer on the Canon 50. She's using the VC 21 on a Bessa L.
Kevin: My "older" daughter is 3.5 years old, so she may have to do some growing up before I trust her with my cameras.
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-01-2006, 22:06
OK back to topic,
Do we have a volunteer to loan us a Voigtlander 50mm 1.5? Made by Cosina, commonly referred to(here in the RFF) as the:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17280
Kiu
Kiu,
Maybe someone will volunteer to send me a newer version of the Nokton.
I have just emailed S.G. to see if he can help us out here.
I am hoping to one day get a Heliar.
I also have a semi-promise from soemone here to send me a Nikkor 50/1.4 in LTM after it gets a CLA soon.
Raid
Spyderman
12-02-2006, 10:14
Thank you for the test, Raid.
For me, the winner is my Jupiter 8. I love the lens and the results I get from it.
We shouldn't forget, that with 20+ years old lenses, every sample is unique. Some had been abused, some fondled...
To me, your test proved that even such a cheap lens as the Jupiter can compare to all those famous names like Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss. Maybe not wide open, but at f/4 it seems very comparable (considering the price difference :)). I got mine for $10 ;)
Thank you for the test, Raid.
For me, the winner is my Jupiter 8. I love the lens and the results I get from it.
We shouldn't forget, that with 20+ years old lenses, every sample is unique. Some had been abused, some fondled...
To me, your test proved that even such a cheap lens as the Jupiter can compare to all those famous names like Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss. Maybe not wide open, but at f/4 it seems very comparable (considering the price difference :)). I got mine for $10 ;)
Ondrej: What you have concluded regarding your inexpensive J-8 is now well known to people. A $1000 lens is not ten times as good optically as a $100 lens. It is like with having a luxury car and a nice "family car". The luxury car does not drive three times as well as the family car. People like to own and enjoy nicer things in life.
Some differences show up with bokeh and with large blow-ups.
Raid
I have just been notified by a RFF member that I can get a new design Zeiss Sonnar 50mm/1.5 lens. We are moving towards including new lenses! This will make the tests even more interesting. I may do a special battery of tests for the ultra fast lenses, such as the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 and the Canon 50mm/0.95 and Canon 50mm/1.2.
Isn't this test becoming a "legacy of 50mm lens testing" !
By the way, I have completed an hour ago a test of all lenses with Fuji Reala and with Dana as my model. My main goal of the test has always been seeing how different lenses render a human face for general photography purposes. I hope that get the film developed and scanned very soon.
Raid
Hey, that's great news, Raid. Even more test shots to look over! I appreciate all your previous efforts (as well as all those folks who sent you their lenses to be used in the tests) and look forward to seeing the additional test shots.
Thanks,
Randy
Hey, that's great news, Raid. Even more test shots to look over! I appreciate all your previous efforts (as well as all those folks who sent you their lenses to be used in the tests) and look forward to seeing the additional test shots.
Thanks,
Randy
Randy: There are at least three RFF members who have volunteered to risk mailing their own lenses and even cameras just to include them in the test.They even pay both ways shipping.
Regards,
Raid
Raid,
This is some serious work. I've been away for some time. The forum has been really active. I'm wondering why the Summar isn't in this group? It would certainly be among the softest. Did you just not have a sample to test? (I'm too far away to loan you mine, which is not among the best samples anyway.)
Anyway, kudos for the outstanding work.
Owen
Raid,
This is some serious work. I've been away for some time. The forum has been really active. I'm wondering why the Summar isn't in this group? It would certainly be among the softest. Did you just not have a sample to test? (I'm too far away to loan you mine, which is not among the best samples anyway.)
Anyway, kudos for the outstanding work.
Owen
Hi Owen,
I have misplaced my [clean] Summar, and that's why I had to exclude it from the test. I mentioned somewhere in the thread that it just vanished from my office.
Regards,
Raid
Here is the second part of the testing of 50mm lenses. I have done a similar test in the past, and I was informed by several RFF members that the accurate focusing was unimportant if the main goal is to see the overall rendition of a face by a lens. I did my best to keep my daughter still, but with a ASA 100 film and at available window light, I found myself shooting at 1/8 sec quite often. These are not appologies, but I want to make sure that the emphasis is not on the focusing [which was tested in Part I].
To bring in a factor of fun here, I have left out the names of the lenses in the scanned images. However, it has been suggested to me in the past to place several lenses in a group, and to identify whjich lenses were used in each group.
I used Fuji Reala 100 with a Bessa T camera. The colors may be off because the articifical light maybe dominated the situation where I depended on the sunlight coming through the window.
Group 1:
Summicron (Rigid) first version 50mm/2.0
Elmar 50mm/3.5
Industrar I-61L 50mm/2.8
J-8 50mm/2.0
Industrar 50mm/3.5 Rigid
Group 2:
Nikon 50mm/2.0
Summicron Collapsible 50mm/2.0
Canon 50mm/1.8
Zeiss Sonnar 50mm/2.0 war-time
Summitar 50mm/2.0
Group 3:
J-3 50mm/1.5(shimmed by Brian Sweeney)
Canon 50mm/1.2
Canon 50mm/1.4
Summarit 50mm/1.5
Canon 50mm/1.5
I will post the images on PN like last time.
Here is the link:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=670650
When you click on "Detail" or just place the mouse over a thumbnail, you will see the Group and Lens number.
Raid
Raid, this second test is tough! Outside of a little variation in the warmth of the lenses, all are perfoming quite well. I would be hard-pressed to match each lens to the appropriate picture. I think I have picked out the Canon 50/1.4 (notable for cool signature) and the Sonnar/Jupiter, and possibly a Summicron, but other than this, I am puzzled.
This test is a lot of fun.
Raid, this second test is tough! Outside of a little variation in the warmth of the lenses, all are perfoming quite well. I would be hard-pressed to match each lens to the appropriate picture. I think I have picked out the Canon 50/1.4 (notable for cool signature) and the Sonnar/Jupiter, and possibly a Summicron, but other than this, I am puzzled.
This test is a lot of fun.
Mark: I made it simpler by only including images taken at 4.0. There are big differences at 1.4-1.5 and 2.0, but quite a few shots are out of focus. I will try next a test with a static target.
The few lenses with cool signatures stick out.
Raid
These results really make you wonder why we spend big bucks on 50mm lenses. Thanks, Raid!
Frank: No problem at all. If we don'tpretend to be elitists, we should get a clean J-3 or J-8 and admit that these two lenses are hard to beat once shimmed correctly.
Raid
These results really make you wonder why we spend big bucks on 50mm lenses.
I do it to get shots like this:
http://static.flickr.com/116/308442457_b76d243195.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/308442457/)
M8, ISO 640, 1/15@f/1.2, 50/1.2 Noctilux
Blakley: You don't need a Noctilux to get an excellent portrait. I am sure that you know it.
Raid
Most photos of this attractive woman with the intense eyes, taken with any of the tested lenses, would be as appealing. This is due more to the photographer's skill and the attractiveness of the model, I think.
Yeah, but I did need one to get THIS portrait. On film, I would have been using ISO 400. With a Summicron, this would have been 1/4 sec. handheld. With the Noct (and the M8 at ISO 640) I was able to use 1/15 sec. at f/1.2. I could have taken a similar shot with the Summilux - but it's expensive too, and the bokeh isn't as nice.
The lights in the background are running at about 20 watts, and they're maybe 10 feet away.
Simply increase the lighting.
And Frank, I very much appreciate the compliments! I will say that capturing an expression like this means "handheld", and doing that in low light means "wide aperture", so the lens is a factor. But of course the lens doesn't take the picture, and it doesn't pose the model. Still, I would never have gotten this with an Elmar, and I probably wouldn't have gotten it with a Summicron.
Simply increase the lighting.
Not an option here; she's a waitress and this (and the others of her) are taken at the bar where she works. I don't control the lights - but that's OK, 'cause as you can see I LIKE the light as it is in there....
It's not a shot that would be impossible to redo with more light.
But I understand what you mean.
No fair, you focused! :D
These results really make you wonder why we spend big bucks on 50mm lenses.
I do it to get shots like this:
http://static.flickr.com/116/308442457_b76d243195.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/308442457/)
M8, ISO 640, 1/15@f/1.2, 50/1.2 Noctilux
And I understand what you mean too - since an Elmar would get 95% of the pictures we could get with a Noctilux, we're spending more than 100% extra for 5% of our pictures - and the Elmar is already an expensive lens compared to any of the CV 50s. There are certainly great deals in inexpensive 50s out there, and a lot of those lenses are better than anything available at any price 25 years ago.
This thread is not about disagreeing about personal choices.
There are plenty of first-class 50mm lenses around, and this is great for all
of us.
Raid
Benjamin Marks
12-03-2006, 18:19
These results really make you wonder why we spend big bucks on 50mm lenses.
I do it to get shots like this:
[pic omitted]
M8, ISO 640, 1/15@f/1.2, 50/1.2 Noctilux
Zowie. Ben
Raid,
I want to join the others in thanking you for doing this 50mm testing. I really appreciate it.
Take care,
Michael
Thanks, Michael. I enjoy doing such testing, and the incredible resposne form RFF members in terms of "views" is rewarding.
Raid
Here are images taken at 2.0 for:
1. Canon 50mm/1.8
2. Summicron Rigid
3. Summicron Collapsible
(from left to right)
Can you detect differences?
I kept the images sizes just below 1MP.
Raid
...and here we have three Canon lenses compared (from left to right)
1. Canon 50mm/1.2 @ 2.0
2. Canon 50mm/1.4 @ 2.0
3. Canon 50mm/1.5 @2.0
Let me know if you want me to now identify all lenses for the overall test at 4.0.
Raid
What about comparing the J-3 to the J-8 @ 2.0?
Here is the comparison:
1. J-3
2. J-8
Are such comparisons meaningful/helpful to you?
A good way to see the images side by side is simply to log on twice and to open each time a different photo. Then reduce the image size for viewing so you see both images side by side,
Raid
Raid, I like these smaller comparisons. I get totally overwhelmed by the page with 48 shots on it.
Frank: I know. This is why I am now breaking things down into small groups. Note that the "big" color test is given in groups of five lenses each and not 48.
I am offering custom comparisons; you tell me which 2-3 lenses you want compared here! I just try to leave out images where either Dana moved or my eyes were not doing their job 100%.
Regards,
Raid
Now let's take a look at the old Summarit 50mm/1.5, compared at 4.0 to the even older Industrar Rigid 50mm/3.5 and the highly praised Nikon 50mm/2.
(from left to right)
1. Nikon 50mm/2 at 4
2. Summarit 50mm/1.5 at 4
3. Industrar 50mm/3.5 at 4
Don't you love it! I find the "glow"of the Summarit inspiring.
Frank loves this lens for special applications.
Raid
Here is a photo taken with the
1. Zeiss Sonnar at 4.0 and a photo taken with the
2. Summitar at 4.0.
The Zeiss lens does not focus well wide open when using an M adapter with it.
Raid
(left to right)
Let's compare at 1.4-1.5 these three lenses:
1. Canon 50mm/1.2 at 1.4
2. Canon 50mm/1.4 at 1.4
3. Canon 50mm/1.5 at 1.5.
Forgive my focusing ...
(left to right)
Raid
like2fiddle
12-04-2006, 17:44
Raid,
Let me also thank you for all this testing. So very helpful and fun for us all. I really am pleased to see the results of the Summitar above as this is the only 50(5cm) lens I happen to own. I've grown to love the different "personalities" of this lens from soft wide open to sharp and contrasty pretty much from f4 on.
Roger
Roger: I agree with you that the Summitar can give great results. I bet, it is similar to the J-8.
Raid
like2fiddle
12-04-2006, 17:49
Roger: I agree with you that the Summitar can give great results. I bet, it is similar to the J-8.
Raid
Yes, I would say so. I've only briefly used a J8 and it was soft wide open, but to my eye not as appealing as the summitar. Closed down I'd say they were comparable. This experience however was in poor lighting as are the majority of the photos I attempt.
Roger
like2fiddle
12-04-2006, 17:51
I still like that Canon 1.5 better than the other two, but I'd take any of the three Canons.
Roger
Roger: Take a look at the J-8 image on the previous page.
Raid
I still like that Canon 1.5 better than the other two, but I'd take any of the three Canons.
Roger
Roger: I have a feeling that unless you quickly buy a Canon 50/1.5, it will only go up in price. In fact, I am looking for a clean example of it myself.
Raid
Roger: I have a feeling that unless you quickly buy a Canon 50/1.5, it will only go up in price. In fact, I am looking for a clean example of it myself.
Raid
I think Raid may be right about the Canon 50/1.5 going up in price. I recently bought one and did some simple comparison shots of it against a very clean Nikkor 50/1.4. I was very pleasantly surprised to see what a great job it does. Shared the results with Roland (ferider) who may be putting up a nice comparison webpage showing my shots. (Roland, you out there? Feel free to post the shots anytime.) Anyways, whether the Canon 50/1.5 goes up in price or not, I'm very happy with mine and would highly recommend it to others particularly if you like the Sonnar look. It eliminated my GAS for a much more expensive fast 50.
-Randy
Randy: Isn't the J-3 also a Sonnar design 50/1.5 lens? I love mine for sure after Brian Sweeney reshimmed it for me. Thanks Brian.
Raid
like2fiddle
12-04-2006, 18:34
Gee, I think you guys are probably right about the inflation factor. There aren't alot of the 1.5's around though, or so it seems. I am contemplating putting up one of my M2's for sale, but then again, maybe I should try to sell the cv 40 and put the money towards a Canon 1.5. Yes, that makes more sense at this point. I saved for that second M2 and found a nice example of one freshly CLA'd for a good price. It's in much nicer shape than the one I use every day, which I'd only sell if I had to.
like2fiddle
12-04-2006, 18:46
Maybe it's the angle, but the flare and loss of detail shows clearly on the top of the sofa (Nikkor > Canon) as well as the area you highlighted Roland.
Great comparison shots. I wouldn't kick either lens out of my bag.
Roger
Now this is what I like to see happen here; people add their own test results so that mine get corrected or completed. Either way I am glad.
raid
Randy: Isn't the J-3 also a Sonnar design 50/1.5 lens? I love mine for sure after Brian Sweeney reshimmed it for me. Thanks Brian.
Raid
Yes, it's my understanding that it is Raid. That's why I just bought one from Justin Low that was also serviced by Brian. It's on its way to me now and I'm looking forward to comparing it to the Canon 50/1.5.
And thanks, Roland, for putting up the webpage you did of the comparison shots I did. By the way folks, Roland had to guess what aperture I was shooting at on those shots and he guessed right for most, but not all, of them. He'll probably update it when he gets a chance. Anyways, thanks again Roland for putting my simple comparison shots into a nice and helpful format for folks to see. Oh, and I think I moved a bit when focusing that first Nikkor shot of the lamp; I don't really think the Canon is sharper than the Nikkor as one might presume based on the lamp shots.
Yep, Raid, it's great when we can all share our results with each other and motivate each other to do more of the same.
-Randy
Yes, Randy, I will update with the info you gave me when I'm home again. It's a bit tricky from here.
Best,
Roland.
Thanks, Roland.
Oh, and one more thought for folks looking at the comparison shots I did - these are just Walgreens scans so they aren't the highest resolution.
-Randy
Let's get back to the thread's test of lenses and let's hear some comments on the lenses here.
Raid
Sorry, Raid. Didn't mean to hijack your thread or distract from all the great work you did testing those lenses! :o
One comment I have is that I wondered about the focus on the shot taken with the Canon 50/1.5 (sorry if I sound completely focused on that lens!). Don't know if the focus was just off, the lens needs cleaning, or what, but unlike many of the other shots, that one is generally soft throughout. This is particularly apparent by comparison to the shots I took versus the Nikkor 50/1.4 where the Canon shots were surprisingly sharp.
-Randy
Randy: Do you mean the test that you did on the Canon 50mm/1.5 or the test that I did? I am just thirsty for discussions here. I also had some shots were I happened to move during the shot or my model moved. With fifteen lenses being etsted, I don't have the luxury of repeating shots.
Raid
Randy: Do you mean the test that you did on the Canon 50mm/1.5 or the test that I did? I am just thirsty for discussions here. I also had some shots were I happened to move during the shot or my model moved. With fifteen lenses being etsted, I don't have the luxury of repeating shots.
Raid
Raid, I was referring to the shot you took of your daughter with the Canon 50/1.5 @ f2.0 (you posted it with 2 other comparison shots in a post in this thread a bit earlier). Perhaps I'm just biased now towards that lens (or, at least, my copy of it...) but I found the shot you took to not be as sharp as the ones I've experienced. Could be, as you say, you happened to move when taking that shot (just as I believe I moved slightly with my first Nikkor 50/1.4 shot of the lamp - see my comment about that in one of my previous posts in this thread) or perhaps your copy of that lens has some haze. Don't know the cause in your particular case, but in response to your request for comments I thought I should point it out.
-Randy
Randy: I now have additional shots of the lenses taken at 1.4/1.5, and the Canon 50mm/1.5 lens looks good there. Take a look.
Raid
Randy: I now have additional shots of the lenses taken at 1.4/1.5, and the Canon 50mm/1.5 lens looks good there. Take a look.
Raid
Will do. Except that I'm losing track of where the new shots are. Can you provide a link?
Thanks,
Randy
Raid - very nice shots of your daughter. In the 3 shots with the Canons, the 1.2 and 1.5 may be front focused a tad, while the 1.4 back focused. No biggie.
Randy - in Raid's first tests of the Zeiss cloth boxes, and videos, do you see the distinct perfect circle bokeh at the top, mostly in the Canon 50/1.5@1.5, but also a little evident in the 50/1.5@2.0 example? That's something the Hexanon doesn't have ;)
There's no doubt from your photos, and some of Raids that these Canon lenses are ultra sharp.
Raid - very nice shots of your daughter. In the 3 shots with the Canons, the 1.2 and 1.5 may be front focused a tad, while the 1.4 back focused. No biggie.
Randy - in Raid's first tests of the Zeiss cloth boxes, and videos, do you see the distinct perfect circle bokeh at the top, mostly in the Canon 50/1.5@1.5, but also a little evident in the 50/1.5@2.0 example? That's something the Hexanon doesn't have ;)
There's no doubt from your photos, and some of Raids that these Canon lenses are ultra sharp.
Yes, Ted/ampguy, I see what you mean. Nice bokeh in those Canon 50/1.5 shots! Better than the Canon 50/1.4, 50/1.2 and the Zeiss 50/2.0 (would love to see a comparison with the Zeiss 50/1.5 - Raid, any chance you can add that to your great set(s) of shots?). And as Roland pointed out earlier, the Canon 50/1.5 is a nicely sharp lens even if it isn't quite as sharp as the Nikkor 50/1.4. Similar praise from Dante Stella when he said, "this is a sleeper of a lens, one that is very much a well-kept secret" (see: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html).
-Randy
Randy:Just scroll back 2-3 pages and you will see the comparisons.
I have the Zeiss 50mm/2 and not the Zeiss 50mm/1.5. If you have such a lens,send it over to me.
I just returned from the post office, picking up additional parcels from Mark.
Unless I am mistaken, they will include a Canon 7s camera with the amazing Canon 50mm/0.95, plus a Nokton lens with adapter [edited:plus a Zeiss 50/3.5] and maybe even a camera to go with that lens.
THANKS Mark!
When someone pays so much money to send me equipmant,and also risks damaging things in the mail, they deserve far more thanks than I do. I will try to make special tests for these special lenses.
Can you imagine the comparison between Canon 50/0.95 and Nikon 50/1.1!!!
Then, compare these two to the "slower lens", the Canon 50/1.2.
Raid
I'm making popcorn now...
While Ted is making popcorn, I loaded up images taken at 2.0:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671321
Now, you can also visit the results taken at 4.0 and you will see the lens information there.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=670650
I lifted the mystery off the images since it is impossible to guess correctly.
Raid
Note: I just replaced in posting # 86 the image that was labeled 'Canon 50mm at 2.0". By mistake, I had an image taken by the Canon 50mm/1.5. Now it has been corrected. It is rather time consuming to keep15 lenses apart.
Raid
Here are images taken at 1.4~1.5 for five lenses.
Raid
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671339
I find the following lenses quite sharp and pleasant looking when looking at the images taken at 2.0:
Nikon 50/2
J-3
Canon 50/1.5
Canon 50/1.8
The eyebrows are sharp, and the overall image quality is high.
Note that the first three lenses are Sonnar design.
Raid
Raid, excellent test of the capabilities of the various lenses at 1.4 and 1.5. After seeing this latest test, I am really impressed, and quite surprised with the J-3. I have to search out the 2.0 section now.
Raid, excellent test of the capabilities of the various lenses at 1.4 and 1.5. After seeing this latest test, I am really impressed, and quite surprised with the J-3. I have to search out the 2.0 section now.
Mark,
The J-3 most likely must first be reshimmed by someone before it is sharp. In my case, Brian handpicked the lens and he then shimmed it. Mine is supposedly made for military uses. Maybe that's why it is so sharp.
Raid
With a moving child/model, variations will occur due to movement. There is no other way to get a human face except with maybe an older model. As you compare the images at 1.5 and 2.0, you may find at times that the image at 1.5 appears sharper. Use the enlarged view to see details. It is quite surpsing how sharp some lenses are.
I may re-do the entire test with all lenses wide open as a back-up replicate.
Raid
I encourage people here to post images taken by any of the lenses [same type] I tested. Maybe we can see similiarities or differences.
Raid
I have good news: Fred (FB) is sending me a new Zeiss 50mm/1.5 C-Sonnar lens for the test in addition to another Nokton lens. He asked me whether anyone has sent me a Noctilux ... he he he. [No]
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-07-2006, 19:46
He asked me whether anyone has sent me a Noctilux ... he he he. [No]
Its just a matter of time, If you got a Nikkor 1.1(on the way) The noctilux better show-up....it's more common and....
Kiu
Kiu: I will shoot at least one roll with each ultra-fast lens to make sure that I get its general qualities on film. I will bracket focusing too. I will tomorrow test the Canon 50mm/0.95. It is quite a large sized lens.
Thanks for sending the Nikkor.
Raid
Raid has not tested this lens yet, but might do so soon. The posted pics are not all that great, but do demonstrate what the lens can do.
Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5 made for the Prominent, with Prominent to Contax RF adapter, on a Contax II. Kari22 exposure was handheld 1/25 second, f2, Kodak 400BCN. Kari23 was at f2.8, same film. The event was a going away luncheon for someone I used to work with. A flash would have ruined the mood. Note: the #22 pic is a little blurry due to subject movement-compare detail of the seam on the jacket across the back of the chair to the detail in the face. In any case, I think that these shots do a good job of portraying the qualities of this lens. Gourgeous OOF, n'est pas?
Mark: This lens looks to have potential. I will try to test it appropriately.
I agree with you that using a flash does not provide the same atmosphere or feel in an imagelike this.
With sub-freezing temperatures at night and mornings, I may prefer to do my testing tomorrow indoors.
Raid
Raid:
Maybe it's my lack of visual acuity or poor taste, but my all-time favorite in your tests is the Summarit 50mm/1.5 at 4.
Thanks for doing this. Also I'm getting a Canon 1.5 before your tests cause the prices to take a dramatic rise.
Do you have any plans for your free time in the future? As the semi-official RFF lens tester, maybe you can do the 28's and 35's also.
Bill
Raid:
Maybe it's my lack of visual acuity or poor taste, but my all-time favorite in your tests is the Summarit 50mm/1.5 at 4.
Thanks for doing this. Also I'm getting a Canon 1.5 before your tests cause the prices to take a dramatic rise.
Do you have any plans for your free time in the future? As the semi-official RFF lens tester, maybe you can do the 28's and 35's also.
Bill
Bill: You are not having poor taste here; I also love that particular image at 4.0. The Summarit, as Frank S will tell us, should be viewed as a special purpose lens. In specific circumstances [like the one I made use of beside a window] it can result in unique looking images. The skin looks creamy and the overall portrait qualities are stunning. However, the Summarit does not perform as well in other light conditions.
Today, I have set as a goal to test drive the Canon 50mm/0.95. If my family life allows me to do so, I will do the testing today. As for testing other focal lengths, I would need RFF members to contribute lenses in a future test.
I only have the following limited choices of 35mm and 28mm lenses:
1. Summicron 35mm/2.0 (8 element version) with eyes [for the M3]
2. Canon 35mm/1.8
3. Canon 28mm/3.5
4. Rokkor 28mm/2.8
All four lenses above are wonderful lenses. Each is a vintage design lens.
Greetings,
Raid
Gabriel M.A.
12-09-2006, 06:36
Raid - to me the only surprises were how soft the Summarit shots are, and how crisp the J-3 shots turned out. I think this shows how different one copy can be from another.
I think I "lucked out" with my current Summarit; although it is "soft" and it renders the highlights with a pseudo veiling-flare behaviour, it renders what's in focus clearly.
The J-3 I have, which is uncoated and seems to have a slightly different glass composition than the majority (it has a green-mint tint) of the J-3s, flares easily, but has the same "feel" like shown in your shots. My J-3 was rebuilt and collimated by Brian Sweeney, and I believe yours was too, as well. I call these the "Brianov" Jupiters.
Another surprise (although I was somewhat expecting it because I had seen some tests with these before) was how soft the collapsible 50 'cron turned out wide open, in stark contrast to the rigid 'cron. The oof rendition of the 50 'cron is more pleasing to my eyes, certainly more "vintage" than the tabbed 'cron I have.
Daunting task, Raid. I bow before you. And your daughter!! What patience!
Gabriel M.A.
12-09-2006, 06:47
I encourage people here to post images taken by any of the lenses [same type] I tested. Maybe we can see similiarities or differences.
I thought I'd post this little test I performed earlier this year, although it's in B&W, so that we have all in one-easy to access thread (link for the curious (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21800)):
1: 50mm J-3 f/1.5 @ f/1.5
2: 50mm J-8 f/2
3: 50mm Summitar f/2
4: 50mm Summar f/2
5: Canon 50mm F1.2 @ f/1.5
6: Canon 50mm F1.2 @ f/2
7: 50mm Zeiss-Opton Sonnar f/1.5 (Contax mount) @ f/1.5
I hope some time not so far in the future I'll test all the above again, including the Summarit, the Summilux pre-asph, and Helios-103 53mm f/1.8
Gabriel: Thanks for posting your test results. My first results posted in this thread are in B&W too, so comparisons can be made. There is a need to carefully do testing again and again to get at the differences due to lens design and performance and those due to human error.
Raid
I have just completed the rollof film in the Nikon S2 with the Nikkor 50m/1.4. Before that,I finshed one roll with the Canon 7s and its 50mm/1.95 lens. I "bracketed" in focusing and took repeated shots to reduce the effects of human error. My focus bracketing is actually a repeat of focusing after throwing the lens out of focus.I added a new element in the test by creating a focus chart of hundreds of numbers and letters on pieces of paper. I used large and small fonts. It is my resolution test. Who knows, maybe it is useful.
I am now going out to get the two rolls developed and scanned.
Raid
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 08:46
I like 6: Canon 50mm F1.2 @ f/2
Thanks for posting that Gabriel. If you need to borrow a 50mm summilux pre-asph let me know. The Canon 50mm 1.2 looks really nice.
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 08:50
but my asph lux is better :P :D
Thanks for posting that Gabriel. If you need to borrow a 50mm summilux pre-asph let me know. The Canon 50mm 1.2 looks really nice.
Mike: Is this an offer for me or Gabriel?
Raid
I used a light tripod with cable release to get the following photos. The first few photos of Dana were taken hand-held. The Canon 50mm/0.95 lens was used wide open. Film is Ilford XP2 Super rated at ASA 200.
The target photos show me that either I am still not focusing accurately or that the lens cannot resolve enough to show the small print.
I am quite pleased with the performance of this ultra-fast lens wide open. I did not skip/edit any frames on the film. These are the first 12 or so images on the roll. When using a lens hood, the rangefinder patch was barely visible, so I removed the lens hood.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=672398
Let us know your views.
Raid
Thanks for posting these, Raid. What is the light streak in
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5310679 ?
Also, are you using your T for these ? If yes, how about doing a comparison of the same photo taken with T and your .85 M6 ?
Best,
Roland.
Roland,
Mark mailed me his Canon 7s for use with the 50mm/0.95 lens.
I don't know if this huge lens can be used on the M6. Maybe Mark can clarifiy this issue, unless you have the answers [you usually do].
I wil ltake another look at the images to identify the source of the"light streak".
Raid
Roland: I was shooting in the living room, with a torchiere light turned on. It could be that the light was reflected from the glass covers of some furniture pieces. This is the only photo with such a light streak.
Raid
I now have the scans ready for the Nikkor 50/1.4 that Kiu sent me with his S2 camera. Focusing was very easy with the S2. I will post the results tonight maybe.
Raid
Here are the results of the Nikkor 50mm/1.4 on the Nikon S2. Both were provided to me by Kiu. I used Ilford XP2 Super rated at ASA 200.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=672453
Raid
Roland,
Mark mailed me his Canon 7s for use with the 50mm/0.95 lens.
I don't know if this huge lens can be used on the M6. Maybe Mark can clarifiy this issue, unless you have the answers [you usually do].
I wil ltake another look at the images to identify the source of the"light streak".
Raid
The 50/0.95 has a unique bayonet mount, and can only be used on a Canon 7 camera. Unfortunately, the lens cannot be mounted on a M6, although I have seen quite a few of these lenses on eBay that have been converted to M mount.
Raid I enjoyed the pics from the 50/0.95. I think that you did a very good job focusing this lens wide open, a task that I have always found to be difficult. As to the fall-off in resolution away from the center, my experience indicates that this is characteristic of this lens, and is not a focusing error on your part. I believe this issue is a common criticism of the lens- that, and some folks find the rendering of OOF areas to be a bit harsh, with an apparent double-line image.
Mark: I enjoyed using your ultra-fast lens. Such a large max aperture opens the door to nonstandard photos. I read somewhere about the need of a Canon 7 camera for this lens,and so I did not attempt to use any other camera with it.
I received Kiu's Nikkor 50/1.1 today, so a comparison of the two special lenses is a must.
Raid
================================================== =====
The 50/0.95 has a unique bayonet mount, and can only be used on a Canon 7 camera. Unfortunately, the lens cannot be mounted on a M6, although I have seen quite a few of these lenses on eBay that have been converted to M mount.
Raid I enjoyed the pics from the 50/0.95. I think that you did a very good job focusing this lens wide open, a task that I have always found to be difficult. As to the fall-off in resolution away from the center, my experience indicates that this is characteristic of this lens, and is not a focusing error on your part. I believe this issue is a common criticism of the lens- that, and some folks find the rendering of OOF areas to be a bit harsh, with an apparent double-line image.
Mark
__________________
Thanks for the support, Roland. I really pushed my eyes to the limits each time I used the 0.95 lens wide open. The first few shots of Dana were hand-held and she actually was moving around.
I will think of a good comparison of the 1.1 Nikkor to the 0.95 Canon. Each came with a camera. so I need to shoot one roll for each lens. Both are expensive lenses, and I treat them with care.
Raid
The Canon 50mm/1.5 came out better looking than its brother, the Canon 50mm/1.4. For balance, someone at photo.net commented on this conclusion as being due to a poor example of the Canon 50mm/1.4 being used. I am sure that Mark, the owner and user of both Canon 50mm lenses has his own conclusions in the issue.
Raid
Roland: The Sonnar design lenses have proven to be excellent lenses for portraits. I like to use the J-3 or Nikon 50/2 as often as possible to take photos of my family. I agree with you that the focusing test showed the Canon 50/1.4 lens to be focused appropriately.
Raid
Another PN member commented today on our findings on the
Canon 50mm/1.4. He also believes like another person already has stated that this lens has a warm color rendition and not cool. Any support for this claim here?
Raid
Raid, my opinion on the "coolness" of the 1.4 is based on a side by side comparison with the 1.8 this past summer in full daylight, on a single roll of Kodak 200. I thought that all the 1.4 shots looked a bit blue compared to the 1.8. This may just reflect my bias for warmer lenses.
As to the resolution, I agree with Roland that the portrait test favored the Canon 1.5. I think that the 1.4 is plenty sharp, although second to the 1.8 IMHO. Lastly, I must confess that I have never really liked the images generated by the 1.4- call it "lens gestalt" for lack of a better term, and tend not to use it often, much preferring the lighter and more compact 1.8 when I am in the mood to use a 50mm.
Oh, I forgot to add that I have a beater Canon 1.4 that has a lot of ugly wipe marks and fine scratches on the front element. Aside from a little extra flare when shooting toward the light, the image from the beater lens is indistinguishable from that produced by the ice clean one that you tested. Yes, it is blue too.
Mark: You are providing convincing evidence that the color rendtion of the Canon 50mm/1.4 is cool, relative to the Canon 50mm/1.8. In my test, it was cooler than the Canon 50mm/1.5. As I mentioned before in this tread that the signature of the lens is important. I called it a "mood" that each lens captures. You do not like the mood captured by your 50/1.4.
I am sure that some people here are forming their opinions/conclusions on some side by side comparisons of lenses. I wish they would throw caution to the side and start sharing with us their personal views on these lenses.
I sometimes post images on photo.net for critique by PN members. Their scoring system goes from a lowest 1 to highest 7. I find it difficult to score a 7. Even with someof my "alltime favorites", I get a few 6's but rarely a 7. I posted four of the shots taken with the Canon 50mm/0.95 on PN,and already I have at least one score of 7 per posted image. This suggests to me that people like the perspective obtained at 0.95. This is a lens for the discriminating photographer. Focusing is relatively difficult, and the lens is heavy, requiring a Canon 7 and no other LTM camera. It is hard to find clean and at a good price.
Raid
I am sure that some people here are forming their opinions/conclusions on some side by side comparisons of lenses. I wish they would throw caution to the side and start sharing with us their personal views on these lenses.
Hi Raid,
I find it difficult to make useful/meaningful conclusions based on computer monitor images of these different lenses, so I am being quiet in this thread. I still think that what you are doing is good though.
Raid: My thanks, as with others, for doing this; it seems a lot of work and I am grateful. I deliberately stayed away until I had time, as I find looking at a large number of images on a computer to be tiring and difficult for me.
The biggest surprises for me have been the Canon 1.2 (which I think is superb and is my current favourite of the test), the J-3 and J-8 (value leaders for sure!), and the ZM 2.0, which I agree was not focused exactly in the first round. I also am a bit surprised at the Summari. It was not as good performance as I had anticipated based on William Eggleston's comments to Memphis in that thread. I'm tentatively concluding that the Summarit under test might have a problem.
Thanks again.
Well, Raid, in the spirit of your request to throw caution to the winds and speak our minds, I can say that based on a test I did this past weekend comparing the Canon 50/1.5 to the Jupiter 3 50/1.5, the Canon was warmer or, alternatively, the Jupiter was cooler. Very similar image taking ability otherwise. Here are a couple of sample shots each taken up close, wide open at f1.5 and 1/1000 with the same camera (Leica M6) on consecutive frames of the same roll of film.
-Randy
Cool comparison, Randy, thanks for posting.
Note that the J-3 "temperature" might change depending on the year
of manufacture, since the coating changed from initially blue (green cast in
the pictures) to a later more color neutral coating.
Roland.
Good point, Roland. The Jupiter 3 used in my test above is a black 1975 model with a very, very pale purplish blue coating.
And obvious credit goes to you, Roland, for the "format" of this particular set of lens test shots...;)
-Randy
I am sure that some people here are forming their opinions/conclusions on some side by side comparisons of lenses. I wish they would throw caution to the side and start sharing with us their personal views on these lenses.
Hi Raid,
I find it difficult to make useful/meaningful conclusions based on computer monitor images of these different lenses, so I am being quiet in this thread. I still think that what you are doing is good though.
Hi Frank,
I know that you are being polite here. I just wish that there other ways to conduct a comparison of about twenty lenses. Maybe if I focused on the Canon 50/1.2 vs. Canon 50/1.4 vs. Canon 50/1.5 vs. Canon 50/1.8, I may be able to get more specific results.
Raid
I would agree that the Canon 50/1.4 is cooler than the 1.5. But again, your portraits are a very specific (and very important) type of photo; I really like the 1.4 for photos outside. For example, the following shot was taken recently with it, @ f5.6 or so:
The edge2edge sharpness and color rendition is important in some
situations ...
BTW, photos taken with the Canon 1.4 have been practically indistinguishable
from photos taken with the 50/1.5 Nokton for me, also wrt bokeh.
Best,
Roland.
Roland:
I hesitate taking lenses belonging to other people outside my home. Your point is well taken. Portraits are not everything. I take mostly photos that are not portraits.
I have two Noktons for the tests, so I should have some results soon.
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-11-2006, 19:31
Are you kidding me???!!
Roland's a Canon nut(1.5).....I am a Nikkor nut....who's gonna prevail????
Regards,
Kiu
Raid: My thanks, as with others, for doing this; it seems a lot of work and I am grateful. I deliberately stayed away until I had time, as I find looking at a large number of images on a computer to be tiring and difficult for me.
The biggest surprises for me have been the Canon 1.2 (which I think is superb and is my current favourite of the test), the J-3 and J-8 (value leaders for sure!), and the ZM 2.0, which I agree was not focused exactly in the first round. I also am a bit surprised at the Summari. It was not as good performance as I had anticipated based on William Eggleston's comments to Memphis in that thread. I'm tentatively concluding that the Summarit under test might have a problem.
Thanks again.
Trius:
You may be right about my sample of the Summarit. I got it cleaned, but it may still be optically imperfect. Still, it did quite well in some shots.
Raid
Are you kidding me???!!
Roland's a Canon nut(1.5).....I am a Nikkor nut....who's gonna prevail????
Regards,
Kiu
Kiu,
I am a photography nut, so we are all one happy Nut family!
Raid
Wih such classical lenses you can't go wrong, Roland.
Raid
Yeah, Kiu, I would say that Roland is more of a "Sonnar nut" than a "Canon nut." Of course, that STILL makes him a nut! :p As for additional proof of his preference for Sonnar lenses, just look at his avatar caption.
And I can also say that his Sonnar fixation has had a bad influence on me. As much as I like my Leica glass, I am very fond of my Sonnar lenses (Canon 50/1.5, Jupiter 3 50/1.5, & Nikkor 85/2.0).
-Randy
tmessenger
12-11-2006, 20:36
I just did a test between the Canon 50/1.8's on my Epson RD1 the chrome version color is warmer then the later model back and silver version.
Tim
Tim: Thanks for your updating information. I own the chrome version of the Canon 50mm/1.8 and I find it a superb lens. Could you post the images here?
Raid
I have just taken ten photos each with the Canon 50mm/0.95and the Nikkor
50mm/1.1. I used both lenses wide open with candle light and some lighgt effects. The rest of the two rolls of film will be completed differently.
Are there any wishes?
Raid
tmessenger
12-12-2006, 14:52
Hi Raid
Well I looked for the test and I must have read the shorts directly off the card and the card is now formated so.... I sold the chrome lens today and have it packed for shipping, I guess I'm stuck! Both lenses were optically identical and the chrome version was just a bit warmer, must be the coating. I'm amazed at how sharp these old lenses are compared to my modern design SLR 50's, they are better wide open and just as good stopped down.
Tim
Tim: In general, rangefinder lenses are optimized for shooting wide open.This is the main feature in which they excel over SLR prime lenses, other than the weight and size. Of course, lenses like the Canon 50mm/0.95 are neither small nor light.
As for your lost images, don't worry about it. We got the message.
Raid
Guess what folks, I will be soon getting as a loaner the Npkton 50mm/1.0!
I now have access to these four beautes:
1. Noctilux 50/1.0
2. Canon 50/0.95
3. Nikkor 50/1.1
4. Canon 50/1.2.
I am thrilled to get such lenses from our kind RFF members. I hope that my amateurish tests are somewhat useful to people here.
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-15-2006, 13:14
Uh oh !... Nikkors are Nikkors, Randy :)
NOT SO!!
there are Nikkor H, Nikkor S, Nikkor Q....:p ;)
:D :D :D :D :) :D :D :D
Raid, What kinda beast is a Nokton 1.0?? I am still hoping for a Noctilux 1.0:cool:
Kiu
NOT SO!!
there are Nikkor H, Nikkor S, Nikkor Q....:p ;)
:D :D :D :D :) :D :D :D
Raid, What kinda beast is a Nokton 1.0?? I am still hoping for a Noctilux 1.0:cool:
Kiu
Uh oh, I'm not getting in the middle of this one! That's between you, Roland, and Kiu! ;)
-Randy
It is a typo, Roland. I meant the Noctilux 50mm/1.0.
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-15-2006, 21:56
I knew Raid got overjoyed by the NOC/NOK business!!
My wish came tru:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Kiu
The Canon 50/1.2 now is the slowest lens here!
I already have quite a few recent images taken with the Canon lenses (1.2 and 0.95), and it will interesting to me to see howiamges taken by the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 and the Noctilux look like.
I know, some here will say that the results are limited in usefulness due to variations in optical qualities of older lenses, but such lenses are hard to come by, and having multiple samples is nearly impossible.
The Canon 50/0.95 came out doing very well wide open,and the Canon 50/1.2is a tested lens with excellent perfromance. Kiu's Nikkor ha snot been tested by him and Fred's Noctilux is most likely a newer lens with documented great optical performance.
For fun, I will take some photos of these four fast lenses for a visual comparison of shape and size while on a camera.
I will try to complete this weekend the Nikkor-Canon comparsions [for the time being]. I will not allow such lenses to get away without other trials.
At first,I thought that ultra fast lenses are for only meant for people who take photos in bars and low light areas, but now I see a lot of possibiities for such lenses to be used in other areas. Portraits can look really cool and special with an aperture of around 1.0~1.2. When stopped even a little down, these lenses are sharp. At least what I have seen so far with the Canon lenses shows this to be true. Just changing the aperture from 1.2 to 4.0 can give you an image that has a totally different look and flavor.
Raid
I knew Raid got overjoyed by the NOC/NOK business!!
My wish came tru:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Kiu
Kiu,
Your willingness to offer a Nikkor 50/1.1 "donation" triggered the whole ultra fast lens loaners. Of course, Mark is a repeat "customer" and donor. We have also to thank Fred [fb] for his generous loans too.
Raid
I now have posted another roll of Ilford XP2 Super taken with the
Canon 50mm/0.95. Almost all photos were taken at 0.95. The exceptions were the target photos where the aperture is marked, plus three shots taken from the front porch. One of the brick wall in the shade was taken at f 2.8 while the other two shots taken in sunshine were taken at f 16.
I did not leave out any image from the roll. It is a good practice roll to see which percentage of shots I could get acceptably sharp at 0.95.
The photos of my wife were staged at candle light plus a small oil lamp plus a torch light pointed at the display cabinet in the background to get some bokeh testing done.
As for my first experience with the Nikkor 50/1.1 resulted in a situation that requires another roll of film to double check the results.
Please feel free to comment.
Raid
Link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=674636
wlewisiii
12-17-2006, 08:15
Those are the candle lit shots I had hoped for. I think that someday I really have to get a 7s & the .95 lens for it; in your hands it is certainly amazing.
William
Thanks guys. This is my first candle light test. I was worried that the results would be horrible, but they came out nice.
After each shot I would turn the focusing barrel to out of focus and then make myself focus again for the following shot. This is like a quality control procedure for my focusing. It prevents getting back a whole roll of film with OOF images due to focusing errors. The Nikon S2 was easier to focus than the
Canon 7s.
I used three candles and one small oil lamp set a foot behind the candles.
The I placed a torch light on a chair outside the view, and I directed its beam only at one part of the cabinet to get some shimmering effects.
My wife was patient.
I also tried turning on a small light source [hidden from view] to slightly enhance the light on my wife's face. I then turned it off to see the effect. Both ways, the effect was nice. When her face was clearly side lit, then this means that light source was turned off.
I did the same thing with the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 but something does not look right there. Since I already have obtained sharp images using the Nikon S2 with the Nikkor 50mm/1.4, the "problem" with the Nikon images are not from the camera's rangefinder system.
This is one of the difficulties with having in a test using two cameras. I had to shoot two rolls of film for matched images (Canon vs. Nikon), and now I may have to do more testing just one the Nikon to see why things happened the way that they happened when used wide open.
I will not post any wide open images on the Nikkor until things are clear to me.
I feel that I owe Kiu this courtesy.
The three shots taken outside the house were very sharp. Note that there was very strong sunshine that day, and I saw plenty of hot spots that could have resulted in low contrast results, but the photo of the bird feeder and the one of our neighbors' house came out sharp.
I never used a lens hood for the posted images this time.
Raid
Roland: Believe it or not, but my daughters have a lot from me. I have old photos of me to prove it. I actually was a goodlooking boy! What happend?!!!!!
Raid
"Plus, I now understand why your daughters are so cute "
Pherdinand
12-17-2006, 09:27
Raid
Your wife is indeed EXTREMELY patient :) I guess this is still to thank to you being a goodloking boy some time ago. ;)
I like the shots, by the way.
Those are the candle lit shots I had hoped for. I think that someday I really have to get a 7s & the .95 lens for it; in your hands it is certainly amazing.
William
William,
I am slowly but surely liking this lens. It opens up new possibilities for my photography. The amount of light is always sufficient for hand held photos.
The OOF effects are very nice too.
Raid
Raid
Your wife is indeed EXTREMELY patient :) I guess this is still to thank to you being a goodloking boy some time ago. ;)
I like the shots, by the way.
Pherdinand,
What can I say ... ?
I am a lucky man. :D
Raid
Pherdinand
12-17-2006, 09:36
William,
I am slowly but surely liking this lens. Raid
Well, here's your big chance. Keep it :D
Well, here's your big chance. Keep it :D
This would be a big surprise for the owner, wouldn't it.
One day, and if I am lucky to locate a clean and well adjusted lens like this one, I may get one. It is sharp enough for portraits. I am looking forward to trying out Fred's Noctilux 50mm/1.0 to see what differences it get.
Raid
Pherdinand
12-17-2006, 09:51
:) I was just kidding. However, i am sure the owners won't mind if you keep the lenses for a few extra days and use them a bit, it might be an unique chance to shoot with some of these lenses!
I will keep the lenses until mid January. By then, hopefully the mail is less congested, plus the owners will miss their lenses.
Raid
Great thread, interesting tests. I have always wanted to compare these lenses. As mentioned, taste differ, but I believe the rigid summicron and the jupiter(s) performing very well. / Kim
Welcome, Kim. There are numerous great threads posted in RFF,and it can be difficult to spot a specific thread, especially when you don't know what is posted inside the thread. I amglad that you find this thread interesting.
Greetings,
Raid
Raid, great work with the 50/0.95! I could not look at all the pictures, but the few I did open were nice (I am visiting my mother for holidays, and using -gasp- a dial-up connection that is painfully slow). The lens exhibits pretty good OOF areas, I think.
Thanks, Mark. I am surprised how nice some of the test images came out. I wish you a great time at your mother's home.
Raid
I spent some time comparing images taken with the Canon 50mm/0.95. In this test, I took repeatedly images at 0.95, while each time I took a photo I first threw the lens to out of focus to make sure that I force myself to focus accurately. I noticed how shallow the depth of field is at 0.95. To better see it, realize that it was very difficult to get both the eyses and the teeth in focus since their planes were slightly off. Things are made worse by the low light conditions. Still, one image came out "perfect" in my opinion. The candles were not at the same exact plane as the eyes,and so they were OOF compared to the sharp eyes. Nico commented on an image that he preferred to have seen the candles clearly, but then the eyes would be OOF.
Here is the image that I like a lot.
My other comment is on the initial comparison of several 50mm lenses in this thread. Unless my eyes are playing a trick on me, I see the image taken with the super cheap 50mm/3.5 Industrar lens as one of the sharpest images.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288163
The Nikkor 50/1.4 was pretty sharp. I refer to the following image of Dana. Look at her eye lashes. There was a fatigue factor for me in the testing of the many lenses. I tested the Nikkor after I had tested the other LTM/M lenses.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5311439&size=lg
Raid
Mikael.N
12-25-2006, 07:38
Merry Christmas Raid and thanks for good job with lens testing this has been 2006 best tread and very informativ regarding what to buy.
Merry Christmas Raid and thanks for good job with lens testing this has been 2006 best tread and very informativ regarding what to buy.
Thanks Mikael.
I wish you too a Merry Christmas and hopefully the following year will be good for all of us and our families.
I am quite happy that so many RFF members and visitors are viewing this thread favorately and not as an activity that has no merits or usefulness.
I still want to do another focusing test on the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 to figure out whether this lens needs some shimming or not, plus I have several 50mm lenses that were sent to me that still need testing.
Cheers,
Raid
I have received today another two lenses from Fred. Thanks!
One of the two lenses is a beautiful Leitz Noctilux 50mm/1.1 lens.
The other is a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm/1.5 in LTM.
Update on the Nikkor 50mm/1.1: It seems that with the Nikon S2, this lens focuses behind the focus point [when I use it], so I will try using Mark's Bessa R2C with this lens instead to find out whether the camera/lens combo makes a differences. It could be my own user's error too. I will try to get my wife to be the model again with the same lights as the ones used for the Canon 50mm/0.95. I will try to use all Nikon mount lenses in the same roll of film.
My wife is getting impatient with me; she wants me to send back ASAP all lenses and cameras and make the dinner table clear of any photography items.
Greetings,
Raid
Here are photos of the four fast lenses. The Canon 50mm/1.2 looks rather small, doesn't it!
Photo Nr. 1 : Canon 50mm/0.95
Photo Nr. 2 : Canon 50mm/1.2
Photo Nr. 3 : Leitz Noctilux 50mm/1.0
Photo Nr. 4 : Nikkor 50mm/1.1
Raid
Raid, you’ve done fantastic job! Thanks a lot! I can’t see any real shortcomings in your testing approach, so I guess we have to accept those results … though we should remember that technical performances are not photographical criteria.
Having said this, I’m a bit disappointed by the results of the Summitar, as others stated; my own Summitar performs very well and I have more details than it appears in your test (your Summitar shows better performance in the portrait series). I’m also disappointed by the Summicron collapsible; low contrast, can't handle the highlights :( . On the other hand, the results of the J8 astonished me; I know J8 can be very good, but that good ... your J8 is better than the one I’ve had.
Bad news (for me): I’m looking for a Canon 1.5/50 now :bang:
Thanks again Raid,
Marc-A.
Marc: Thanks for your encouraging words. I need such encouragement to keep on with the lens comparisons. I am also disappointed with the performance of the rigid Summicron compared to how it did in an earlier test of mine. I have a feeling that since my lens comparisons differ this time from my last test of 50mm lenses, that maybe lens performance can differ based on what type of photo is taken. In earlier lens comparisons, I did not have dark room environments and I did not include an artificial light source for flare and bokeh.
Roland mentioned recently something to this effect [that different uses can result in different relative results]. If you use the lens for nature photography you may be content with a lens that does not so well in a flare test done in a dark room.
Important restrictive factors for me are time and cost.
If I would shoot one roll per lens, I would need about 22-24 rolls of film.
I don't mind doing once a year such a test as I am right now.
Cost is maybe OK but I don't have that much free time anymore.
The FSU lenses are gaining more respect after each test. I now trust my J-3 as a single 50mm lens in my camera bag. In the past, I viewed FSU lenses as paper weight.
Unless I am mistaken, I have the following lenses to compare:
1. Nokton [Prominent] in Leica mount
2. Nokton [Proimemnt] in Nikon mount
3. Zeiss Jena 50mm/1.5 in Leica mount
4. Zeiss Tessar in Nikon mount
5. Leitz Noctilux 50/1.0
6. Nikkor 50/1.1
7. Nikkor S 50mm/1.4
8. Zeiss Sonnar C 50mm/1.5
Once I complete these comparisons, I may be ready for one more round of testing of specific cases based on the requests of RFF members. I want to make sure that I have not forgotten some important comparisons before returning these wonderfulo ptics to their kind owners.
Regards,
Raid
MikeyGaGa
12-29-2006, 04:42
Friends:
Dont be surprised if the cheap Industar lens outdoes the others. Fast lenses are a compromise. The old 50/2.8 Tessars and Xenons were optimized for sharpness and contrast.
Some of the sharpest slides i have shot were with a cheesy Voigtlander VF101(compact autoexp RF from the 70s)with a 40/2.8 Color-Skopar.
Comments?
MikeyGaGa
Mikey: I put up the FSU lenses not just against very fast lenses, but I have Summicrons and Nikkor lenses too. Still, the FSU lenses did quite well relatively speaking. The Industrar 50/3.5 rigid surprised me the most.
Raid
NIKON KIU
12-29-2006, 21:50
Update on the Nikkor 50mm/1.1: It seems that with the Nikon S2, this lens focuses behind the focus point
Raid
Life is not always a beach....most times the "a" is replaced by an "i"
Kiu
Kiu: By careful testing, maybe I can remove the "i" and replace it with a beautiful "ea" ? Your lens is so beautiful, it is worth it.
Raid
I have completed three rolls of lens comparisons today. One roll was true B&W, and it will take some time to get the film developed and scanned, but the other two rolls were C-41 B&W and maybe I can post tomorrow the results.
Raid
Excellent, Raid. Looking forward to seeing more of your great lens tests. Thanks again for all the effort.
-Randy
Randy: I hope that the results will be interesting. The Nocilux was easy to focus as was the Zeiss C-Sonnar. I had difficulties with the Nikkor 50/1.1 in seeing the focus point. With a rangefinder camera, you expect not to see differences from lens to lens when focusing with a camera. This is strange.
Maybe I am imagening things here.
I took photos of Dana first, followed by photos of my wife. With Dana I decided not to use candle light to avoid any dangers of fire, and I used a small Florescent light.
Raid
Maybe, Raid, but I think that you're probably right in that I've noticed that some lenses are just easier to focus than others. Perhaps it's the throw of some lenses and/or the feel of any focusing tab/protrusion just making some lenses easier to focus than others. And like I said, i'm looking forward to seeing your latest batch of test results.
-Randy
Randy: I will try to have two rolls of film posted tomorrow night. I hurt a muscle in my back recently, and this slowed me down. Today, I tried carefully to take the test photos. After seeing and using so many beautiful 50mm lenses, it is now difficult to decide which to get or sell. I hope that you will like the test result, Randy.
As for the focusing issue, I wonder if some lenses have a better rangefinder coupling than others.
Regards,
Raid
Here are photos taken with the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 which Kiu kindly supllied. Initially, I used Kiu's Nikon S camera with this lens,and the results were horrible. We thought the lens needed some shimming or something else was wrong with the lens. Then I used the Bessa R2C which Markly kindly provided me with. The whole Nikkor lens issue was a puzzle since another Nikkor lens worked well with Kiu's Nikon S.
I have not edited any image;all images are shown. We (Brian Sweeney and I) first thought that the Nikkor was focusing behind the focus points chosen, so I focused slightly OOF, but then I just used what the Bessa R2C showed me to be in focus.
Kiu, I think that your Nikkor is fine. There is no way in the world that the lens is in need of repair and then I get many photos at 1.1 rather sharp. The Nikon S does not work well with this lens. Maybe the camera's rangefinder system needs an inspection.
Dana moved around [as usual] and the images with her are less sharp than those with my wife. Also, Dana was not looking at me but at the light source, and this made focusing very difficult. I saw only hair and a piece of the nose.
I avoided using lit candles with the child, and I improvised and used [from last hurricane] a neon light. With my wife, I used the lit candles, and this time I tried to get the candles also in focus as someone [was it Nico?] in the critique forum suggested to me when I posted an image there recently.
<