View Full Version : RFF 50mm Lens Comparison for Summer 2009
I have done more than one lens comparison in the past, and it always has been a RFF project since most lenses were sent to me by RFF members for the lens shootout.
In this project here, I would like to focus on 50mm lenses that were not included in previous lens comparisons.
In particular, I would like to take a good look at these lenses:
Heliar 50/2 and 50/3.5
Elmar-M 50/2.8
Summicron [edit: this lens is not aspherical]
Summilux Aspherical
Summicron-DR
Any modern 50mm lens and lenses that I left out in the past comparisons.
I will later today post some information on how the guidelines usually have been for all people involved in such a RFF project.
Personal messages should be used if you need specific information.
Thanks a lot.
------------------------------------------
Added on August 8:
Higher resolution versions of the test results can be found in
http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/9196210_YBLFy
I do not want to repeat the older lens comparisons. If you have not seen one of the previous lens compartisons [with their limitations], here is the summary posting with results:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
The Elmar-M is reportedly very sharp and better optically than the old style Elmar 50/2.8. I want to investigate this a little.
The Heliar 50/3.5 was the "sharpest lens", and a comparison with its sister Heliar 50/2 would be interesting.
The Summicron is a classic Leica lens that is know for sharpness. Maybe the lastest version could be used for a control lens. The ASPH Summilux is also known for sharpness.
Maybe having one super Nikkor lens would also be good here so that Nikon users don't get upset! The 50/1.4 Millenium may be a good choice. Any other suggestions?
Which other 50mm lenses have a good reputation for optical greatness?
This is how it works:
1. The lens owner sends me a lens [return postage covered by lens owner].
2. I return the lens to owner within an agreed upon time frame.
If the number of lenses stays at some manageable number, I pay for the cost of film, developing and scanning. When I had about 30 lenses, I needed some assistance with the cost.
Here, it looks as if the number of lenses will be manageable.
I may have the Heliar 50/3.5 promised as a loaner for the project.
This got it all started.
Raid, just confirming that can lend you the Heliar 50/3.5, and I can also send you a Summarit 50/2.5
Raid, just confirming that can lend you the Heliar 50/3.5, and I can also send you a Summarit 50/2.5
Thanks a lot Paul. You got the ball rolling ..............
So we now have the following lenses:
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
3. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
4. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
I will throw in my two vintage lenses just for comparison purposes.
Raid, I can send my heliar 50/2 if you like.
Cheers...
Fergus.
Thanks a lot, Fergus.
The way I arrange things for such lens comparisons is that we wait until all lens loaners have been announced here before setting any fixed date for the lens comparisons.
So we now have the following lenses:
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
3. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
4. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
5. Heliar 50mm/2 [Fergus]
I have done more than one lens comparison in the past, and it always ha sbeen a RFF project since most lenses were sent to me by RFF members for the lens shootout.
In this project here, I would like to focus on 50mm lenses that were not included in previous lens comparisons.
In particular, I would like to take a good look at these lenses:
Heliar 50/2 and 50/3.5
Elmar-M 50/2.8
Summicron Aspherical
Summicron-DR
Any modern 50mm lens that I left out in the past comparisons.
I will later today post some information on how the guidelines usually have been for all people involved in such a RFF project.
Personal messages should be used if you need specific information.
Thanks a lot.
I suppose you do know that Summicron 50 is NOT ASPH lens. Maybe you wanted to say Summilux Asph.?
kermaier
06-15-2009, 07:56
Anyone have a Konica L Hexanon 50/2.4 collapsible to contribute?
Hi Raid, I still use this method to test my lenses. By having items within the DOF range of the subject being focused on, you can tell if focus is on, by determining how much in front of the plane, and behind the plane is in focus. You can also determine if there is focus shift, and how much, even if the subject is in focus.
You can do simpler things like a slanted ruler, etc. but just seeing an isolated subject in focus, doesn't confirm where you are focused on in the DOF range.
If you don't account for these issues, it might be best to just set the lens on infinity, and shoot a nice landscape.
Good luck with your new tests.
I suppose you do know that Summicron 50 is NOT ASPH lens. Maybe you wanted to say Summilux Asph.?
Yes, I know I made an error. I meant the last Summicron and the asph Summilux. Thanks.
We now also have Ari contributing a CV 50mm/2.5. Thanks.
So we now have the following lenses:
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
3. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
4. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
5. Heliar 50mm/2 [Fergus]
6. CV 50mm/2.5 [Ari]
Anyone have a Konica L Hexanon 50/2.4 collapsible to contribute?
Any Konica 50mm lens would be welcome.
Hi Raid, I still use this method to test my lenses. By having items within the DOF range of the subject being focused on, you can tell if focus is on, by determining how much in front of the plane, and behind the plane is in focus. You can also determine if there is focus shift, and how much, even if the subject is in focus.
You can do simpler things like a slanted ruler, etc. but just seeing an isolated subject in focus, doesn't confirm where you are focused on in the DOF range.
If you don't account for these issues, it might be best to just set the lens on infinity, and shoot a nice landscape.
Good luck with your new tests.
Thanks.
I haven't made up my mind yet how I will this time do the lens comparisons.
I think that we will have some interesting paired comparisons between lenses.
Elmar 50mm 2.8: older version with new version Elmar
Heliar 50mm/3.5 vs. Heliar 50mm 2.0
Summicron rigid V1. vs. DR-Summicron
New Summicron vs. Summilix Asph
CV 50mm 2.5 vs. CV 50mm Nokton
The lenses in bold are missing so far.
I think that there is no need to wait much longer for the comparisons to start. How about me doing the photography between July 1 - July 21?
At least one lens will be sent from Australia!
Better do it soon.
Paul, Fregus, and Ari:
I have sent you each a pm with my mailing address. Thanks!
Platinum RF
06-16-2009, 06:21
This is totally waste of time and money, all you can test is only one aperture and one test plane at one distance. The result will misleading too.
This is totally waste of time and money, all you can test is only one aperture and one test plane at one distance. The result will misleading too.
Why can I only test one aperture and one test plane at one distance? Maybe you could explain why such limitations exist here. Thanks.
Platinum RF
06-16-2009, 08:58
I think a constructive way is to ask people who own these lenses to post their best worse shoots under different lighting conditions, at open up and closed down, and show what is the lens capable to do, without a best head behind the camera, any lens put on the camera will be a waste.
I have seen your lens test, personally, I think it is waste of your time, money and mislead or false impressiuon on only few pictures from the lens.
If I was you I will save these money and buy my kinds some ice cream.
Platinum RF - trust me, no-one wants to see my worst shots! My 'best' are, to be kind, still rather woeful...
My heliar is on the way.
Cheers...
Fergus.
I think a constructive way is to ask people who own these lenses to post their best worse shoots under different lighting conditions, at open up and closed down, and show what is the lens capable to do, without a best head behind the camera, any lens put on the camera will be a waste.
I have seen your lens test, personally, I think it is waste of your time, money and mislead or false impressiuon on only few pictures from the lens.
If I was you I will save these money and buy my kinds some ice cream.
Thanks for your input.
I will tell my kids about you.
Platinum RF
06-16-2009, 10:42
Summicron-DR is the same optical structure as Rigid, I have 2 Dr and 2 rigid they are all the same in tern of general optical signature, however, there are some subtle contrast changes between the early DR/Rigid and late Dr/rigid. This is another point to prove your test is waste of time and money. I think it is good idea to buy ice cream for your kids instead of buying film that will be wasted. Just my one cent.
Summicron-DR is the same optical structure as Rigid, I have 2 Dr and 2 rigid they are all the same in tern of general optical signature, however, there are some subtle contrast changes between the early DR/Rigid and late Dr/rigid. This is another point to prove your test is waste of time and money. I think it is good idea to buy ice cream for your kids instead of buying film that will be wasted. Just my one cent.
I understand you are in the ice cream business...
A lens test, as problematic as can be can point at certain optical characteristics beyond beliefs, and personal experiences, sometimes completely contradictory brought over the web by different people.
I have seen your lens test, personally, I think it is waste of your time, money and mislead or false impressiuon on only few pictures from the lens.
With all due respect, this is all just for fun. I think that everyone understands the inherent limitations of these types of lens tests, but I think that many will still find the results interesting...
Lighten up! ;)
Imagine how much ice cream I could buy if I didn't spend the money courier-ing my lens?
:)
Platinum RF
06-16-2009, 11:35
I understand you are in the ice cream business...
A lens test, as problematic as can be can point at certain optical characteristics beyond beliefs, and personal experiences, sometimes completely contradictory brought over the web by different people.
LOL, why spend money on contraditory? I still think a ice cream treat for the kids are better. I do not sell ice cream for living or in ice cream biusiness, I do buy ice cream for my kids.
Platinum RF
06-16-2009, 11:39
Imagine how much ice cream I could buy if I didn't spend the money courier-ing my lens?
:)
hah, may be one gallon ice cream?
hah, may be one gallon ice cream?
Oh, how I wish you were in charge of pricing at the post office :):):)
bean_counter
06-16-2009, 12:00
I like to think of these lens tests as the little pink plastic "taste sample" spoons at Baskin Robbins ice cream stores (do they still have those?). If I like the sample, I might just give it a try.
I found the Canon 50/1.8 to be very tastey!
It was never claimed that such lens comparisons provide the only source of information on the lenses. Just the opposite is true. Owners of some of the lenses compared usually post their opinions and some images on their lenses, and they will challenge findings posted here if they believe otherwise. This is the beauty of such interactive RFF projects. The community takes part in sharing their knowledge on some lenses. I will buy ice cream for my children but not because of "the suggestion" above. We live in Florida. It is summer. Hence, we eat ice cream.
Heading to the post office today to courier the lens, I will buy an ice-cream on the way to work. It is currently quite cold here (winter) but I will pretend to be in Florida! Triple choc?
Heading to the post office today to courier the lens, I will buy an ice-cream on the way to work. It is currently quite cold here (winter) but I will pretend to be in Florida! Triple choc?
Dana likes chocolate but Lina likes Vanilla.
Maybe there is link between lens choices and ice cream preferences?
Thank you, Fergus.
I am planning to use each lens wide open plus 4.0, 5.6, and 8.0.
I will include a flare test and a bokeh test to see how OOF parts look like.
As usual, I will include some portraits too.
I have plenty of color film at home, so I will use color film.
I’ve written the name of one lens that I expect to give a surprisingly good account of it’s self on a piece of paper and sealed it into an envelope.
I will then open the envelope with a flourish and astound the audience when the test results are in.
Hi Stewart,
With a limited number of lenses to test, it should be manageable [again] to hide the identity of each lens at first. I will try to get large scans and I will not tell anyone which lenses I am posting results of until the end of the discussions later on.
In fact, I may throw in some surprise lenses [I have twenty 50mm lenses to choose from] just for the fun of it. It is a fun project after all. Whoever identifies/guesses most lenses correctly gets something from us.
ItsReallyDarren
06-18-2009, 20:06
I have a CV Nokton 50 1.5 I can lend to the project.
Hi Darren,
You're on! Thank you.
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
3. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
4. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
5. Heliar 50mm/2 [Fergus]
6. CV 50mm/2.5 [Ari]
7. CV Nokton 50mm/1.5 [Darren]
Does anyone want to contribute a Summicron last version to our small project?
I may have a Pentax 43mm 1.9 Limited also for the project, but this depends whether I will click on BUY NOW or not this weekend.
Al Kaplan
06-19-2009, 19:21
"Way Back When" Nikon made a 50mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor in both Nikon rangefinder and Leica thread mount. It was reputed to be the sharpest 50 EVER!
It'd be great to get one of those to test and find out if it was true or just hype!
Al,
Where wouldI find such a lens, followed by asking the owner to lend the lens to me?
Al Kaplan
06-19-2009, 19:51
The Micro-Nikkor is indeed a rare lens! I was just hoping that maybe MAYBE somebody might have one. I saw one once back in the 1960's. The Nikon F was on the market by then and people were using F mount glass for their macro work.
I do have a late model black 65/3.5 Elmar for my Visoflex IIs, supposedly a better lens than the earlier chrome version, should you want to test it. I also have (someplace...LOL) a couple of the dedicated extension tubes that fit between the lens head and the focusing mount
We can always hope that a miracle will occur, Al.
Indeed, a mico Nikkor sounds very interesting.
We have this list of lenses for the test.
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
3. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
4. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
5. Heliar 50mm/2 [Fergus]
6. CV 50mm/2.5 [Ari]
7. CV Nokton 50mm/1.5 [Darren]
8. Pentax 43mm 1.9 Limited [Raid]
I just picked up a parcel from the post office. It came to us from Australia!
I also just bought Robert's 43mm 1.9 Pentax Limited. Thank you, Robert [digitalintrigue].
We need an Elmar-M 50mm/2.8 for sure and the hexanon 50mm/2.
Let's focus on these two lenses.
Any volunteers to wrap up the lens set for the project?
Come on ...
leighmarrin
06-20-2009, 23:34
Raid, if you want to expand your test to Contax lenses, I'll loan my Carl Zeiss rigid 5cm f3.5 Tessar. This last version can be a little pricey and I've seen a few claims that it is one of the sharptest 50mm lenses ever made. (I dunno... but I've not used it much; my LTM 35mm f2.5 CV Skopar certainly has more contrast.)
--Leigh in Santa Barbara.
PS, everyone, I loaned Raid a lens for his previous 35mm lens test, and he did a great job of shipping it and returned it quickly.
I can supply a Leitz Summilux 50 v2 in fine optical condition. While a 1960s-era chrome lens, this can properly be called the pre-ASPH, since the design was unchanged until the ASPH release. Later copies were multicoated of course, but that shouldn't affect sharpness, bokeh, or flare in lower-contrast light.
Raid, if you want to expand your test to Contax lenses, I'll loan my Carl Zeiss rigid 5cm f3.5 Tessar. This last version can be a little pricey and I've seen a few claims that it is one of the sharptest 50mm lenses ever made. (I dunno... but I've not used it much; my LTM 35mm f2.5 CV Skopar certainly has more contrast.)
--Leigh in Santa Barbara.
PS, everyone, I loaned Raid a lens for his previous 35mm lens test, and he did a great job of shipping it and returned it quickly.
Thank you, Leigh.
Let's include selected Contax mount lenses.
I will pm you my address again.
Once I get lenses in, I start a log in which each lens is described and its owner's name listed. I would state: "front cap, rear cover, original, ... etc.".
I leave all parcels in the same room until I mail lenses back in the same boxes they came in.
I can supply a Leitz Summilux 50 v2 in fine optical condition. While a 1960s-era chrome lens, this can properly be called the pre-ASPH, since the design was unchanged until the ASPH release. Later copies were multicoated of course, but that shouldn't affect sharpness, bokeh, or flare in lower-contrast light.
Hi Rick,
Thanks. I will pm you my address again.
We have this list of lenses for the test.
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 [Paul]
2. Heliar 50mm/2 [Fergus]
3. CV Nokton 50mm/1.5 [Darren]
4. CV 50mm/2.5 [Ari]
5. Summarit 50mm 2.5 [Paul]
6. Elmar 50mm 2.8 first version [Raid]
7. Summicron 50mm 2.0 first version [Raid]
8. Summilux V2. chrome [Rico]
9. Pentax 43mm 1.9 Limited [Raid]
10. Carl Zeiss rigid Tessar 5cm 3.5 Contax mount [Leigh]
11. Zeiss Jena 5cm 2.0 collapsible Contax mount [Raid]
12. Zeiss-Opton 5cm 1.5 Contax mount [Raid]
Now we have a nice collection of 50mm lenses. There is no need for such a project to have all types of lenses or there would be no need for any future lens projects [but we have no Nikkors].
So it is a "waste of time"and "waste of money"and the results could be "deceptive" and "misleading"... etc., but it is lots of fun for me and many people here and at other photo websites who look to RFF for the results. There is no need to get actually angry!
Since we are including the Contax mount Tessar 5cm 3.5, I will add to the mix a Contax mount Zeiss Jena 5cm 2.0 collapsible and a Zeiss-Opton 5cm 1.5. I always need several lenses on a Contax camera so that I don't have to waste film for one lens only. Any lenses I add to the mix do not add complexity for me.It is the loaner lenses that require a lot of attention. I drive back and forth to the post office whenever I get a slip to pick up a lens.
Happy Father's Day.
So it is a "waste of time"and "waste of money"and the results could be "deceptive" and "misleading"...
Clearly the solution is ice-cream, as previously discussed. :p
Today I had 'ecuador dark' flavour... :D
I have never tried such a flavor in ice cream. Still, I stick with ... Vanilla.
Imagine double-strength triple-choc, and you've got it.
Are any of the lens' on test that rich?
lawrence
06-22-2009, 05:35
I'll be interested to see how the CV lenses compare to each other. Pity there are no contemporary Zeiss (Planar & Sonnar) as I'm also curious to see how they compare to each other and to the CV...
Imagine double-strength triple-choc, and you've got it.
Are any of the lens' on test that rich?
When you a multiple of extraordinary lenses on hand, no lens ia a "double-strength triple-choc" anymore. Trust me; I feel always relieved after mailing back all the amazing lenses, to take care of my modest set of vintage lenses.
I'll be interested to see how the CV lenses compare to each other. Pity there are no contemporary Zeiss (Planar & Sonnar) as I'm also curious to see how they compare to each other and to the CV...
Hi Lawrence,
I have had as loaners in the past some lenses like the Noctilux 1.0, the Nikkor Millenium, Nikkor 1.1, Canon 0.95, and many Zeiss lenses. Having all such lenses together would be too big of a project and with too little results per lens.
lawrence
06-22-2009, 07:45
Hi Lawrence,
I have had as loaners in the past some lenses like the Noctilux 1.0, the Nikkor Millenium, Nikkor 1.1, Canon 0.95, and many Zeiss lenses. Having all such lenses together would be too big of a project and with too little results per lens.
OK, point taken :o
As in all previous lens comparisons, there are over 1000 views before any results have been given. This really is amazing.
I have received a parcel from Paul today. The two lenses have arrived!
I meant the Heliar 50mm/3.5 and the Summarit 50mm/2.5.
Raid, you have received several lenses now.
The test must be getting closer!
Given the news of recent days, are we able to include some kodachrome in the test? If you don't have any I'll send some? A fitting farewell?
Cheers...
Fergus.
Hi Fergus,
I have some Kodachrome 64, but I am not sure that slides would be easily scanned in quantity for the rolls of film that I will take.
Another eagle has landed ... and now I have the CV Nokton 50mm/1.5. Thank you, Darren.
I am still waiting for the following lenses before starting any lens comparisons:
CV 50mm/2.5 [Ari]
Summilux V2. chrome [Rico]
Carl Zeiss rigid Tessar 5cm 3.5 Contax mount [Leigh]
We are getting there !
ItsReallyDarren
06-28-2009, 12:58
Raid,
Glad to hear the lens made it over safely. Hope the tests go well.
I'm excited to see how each lens fares in the tests.
Thanks, Darren.
Two more people have sent me a pm about having sent their lenses to me. I will start the comparisons once I get the lenses.
I think, there were three lenses left to be sent.
Since the number of lenses will be manageable, I will try to include photography outside the home.
I am swamped with work, but such a lens comparison is so much fun to do.
I have a Heliar 50mm 3.5 LTM on the way to me! I got myself such a lens after all. So I have two samples ...
Congrat's on the Heliar purchase Raid.
If you feel the need to also buy a 50/2 (hint hint) consider please buying a chrome one. You could keep my black minty one and send me the chrome! :)
Congrat's on the Heliar purchase Raid.
If you feel the need to also buy a 50/2 (hint hint) consider please buying a chrome one. You could keep my black minty one and send me the chrome! :)
I get the hint! :D I have a chrome M3 and a black M6, so either chrome or black works for me.
On the other hand, I may take Tom's advice and use the Heliar 50 3.5 during the bright summer days, after which I can sell it to get a Nokton 50 1.1.
Raid I am concerned you don't have a suitably complete 50mm lens kit, that's all. :p
Just thinking of your best interests :)
buzzardkid
07-03-2009, 05:02
Raid,
it's that shipping to and fro would be killing me, else I would have lend the M-Hexanon 50mm f2.0.
I would love to see the lens feature in this test, but shipping all in all adds up to approx 45 USD and budget is tight for me during this summer.
Hopefully someone else will lend the M-Hexanon!
Raid,
at f4 and up several of the lenses that you will be testing have > 100 lp/mm resolution across the field. Including (if well collimated) the Nokton, the 3.5 Heliar, and your rigid Summicron, for instance.
To do more than bokeh and contrast tests, I recommend some high resolution film and a good scanning process. If you manage to keep it under 5 rolls, I'll volunteer for scanning and post-processing. Send me email to discuss, if you like.
Roland.
Hi Roland,
You are right, and I am feeling the challenge to manage such lenses.
I wonder which type of film to use here.
I have Kodak 100UC. Is this high resolution or not?
I have sent you an email.
Thank you for the willingness to share the leadership in the experiment.
I have received in the mail a Summilux 50/1.4 from Rico. Thanks.
I also got a receipt from the post office for two parcels that need to be picked up. Maybe they are from Ari and Leigh?
I picked up the last two lenses for the lens project. In particular, I received a Tessar 5cm 3.5 that belongs to Leigh, and I got from Ari a CV Color Skopar 50mm 2.5.
The stage has been set to start the project.
I will try again to contact Roland about sharing ideas on how to execute the project.
ItsReallyDarren
07-06-2009, 21:53
Sounds exciting. Do you have a particular film set out for the project? You have quite a number of lenses to test, I can chip in for the cost of film and or development. If others do so as well we can get a pot going to help offset the materials side of the testing.
Juan Valdenebro
07-07-2009, 05:45
Yes, for such an interesting, definitive, huge test, cost of slide film & development, apart from Raid's time, for sure will be hundreds... We should make a global call for a few dollars each person, maybe by paypal... Any other idea?
The cost will be kept low, so don't worry about it.
Thanks for the thought.
it would be good to take best performers from older test 1 or 2 from them - just to have something to compare those new lenses with...
All "best performers" have been returned after the previous tests.
I could add an "excellent performer", such as a Summicron 50mm/2.0 or Nikkor 50mm/2.0 or Canon 50mm/1.4 or Elmar 50mm/2.8.
All "best performers" have been returned after the previous tests.
I could add an "excellent performer", such as a Summicron 50mm/2.0 or Nikkor 50mm/2.0 or Canon 50mm/1.4 or Elmar 50mm/2.8.
Hi Raid,
I would really like to see your rigid/DR Summicron in the test as well.
Best,
Roland.
Hello Raid,
I see from your previous tests that in the Japanese lens section you tested only lenses from Canon and Nikon.
Do you think it would be possible to test the more unappreciated Japanese LTM lenses such as:-
[removed]
and others.
and compare them to the more well known contemporary Canon and Nikon lenses of the 1950's and 60's which you have already done.
I think you will find that some of these lesser known lenses are very fine performers and are worthy of greater recognition.
Perhaps this could become the aim for a :-
" 50mm Lens Comparison for Summer 2010."
Regards,
The invitation to send me a 50mm lens was open to everyone and for every 50mm lens. Now, there are all lenses here with me that were promised by several RFF members. Not everyone is willing to temporarily loan out a lens, as you may suspect. I was hoping for a Konica lens, but nobody volunteered such a lens. Who would send me now a Simlar, say?
Anyways, what you have proposed could be a future lens project to compare the obvious with the not so obvious choices in 50mm lenses.
Thanks.
There are seven lenses in LTM/M that I can use with one camera, and there are three in Contax mount for which I have to use another camera. From the seven LTM/M lenses only the rigid Summicron is a vintage lens. It is thrown in to be a control lens for the other lenses to "clearly overshadow". [maybe not?]
at apertures:
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5 3.5/4.0 5.6
2. Heliar 50mm/2 2.0 4.0 5.6
3. CV Nokton 50mm/1.5 2.0 4.0 5.6
4. CV 50mm/2.5 2.5 4.0 5.6
5. Summarit 50mm 2.5 2.5 4.0 5.6
6. Summilux V2. chrome 2.0 4.0 5.6
7. Summicron rigid 2.0 4.0 5.6
=> 20 exposures for one set-up. I may include "wide open". [one roll of film]. I may have four different set-ups for the general comparisons. [four rolls]
The the only loaner lens [Tessar 5cm 3.5] in Contax mount is a vintage lens with a reputation to be much sharper than the older Tessar 5cm 2.8. How sharp is such a lens in comparison with newer design [sharp] lenses? I added two additional vintage lenses to the Contax mount lens so that one roll may be do the job in the Contax or Kiev.
8. Carl Zeiss rigid Tessar 5cm 3.5 Contax mount 3.5/4 5.6
9. J-3 50mm 1.5 Contax mount 2.0 4 5.6
10. Zeiss-Opton 5cm 1.5 Contax mount 2.0 4 5.6
==> 8 exposures times 4 ==> 32 exposures [one roll]
These five rolls will be sent for Roland for careful scanning. Thank you, Roland. His work not only will be "special", but it will lower the cost for the project. Premium scans in Pensacola can cost $10-$15/roll.
Then I may create on the side a few extra set-ups that are "just for the fun of it" and which will not be sent to Roland for scanning.
If Premium scans are needed, let me know.
What do you think about the plan?
Juan Valdenebro
07-10-2009, 04:17
Some time ago, I was deciding which 50mm to buy for a Nikon mechanical SLR system I was completing, already having the 20 2.8 and the 105 2.5, and I was surprised at the contradictory reviews and tests... Every 50mm lens included in my options, was the "winner" somewhere in a well conducted test...
So I decided to stop checking tests on the screen, and downloaded a couple of them, which images had resolution enough to prolab print on photographic paper. Finally, my decision was taken after printing a colour test (with Jack Daniel's shots, if someone wants to look for it): The print showed reality far beyond the screen. I've used the 50 1.4 Ai for years, what a wonderful lens, with a soft yet sharp rendering for portraits at 1.4, and then from 1.8 beats every other Nikkor slr 50 I've compared it to both on film and digital. Maybe a good sample.
I mean I would trust -a lot more- a print or raid's direct conclussions, than computer images...
We always have Roland as the "second inspector" of the results before they make it here.
Yes, I know that inspecting prints and looking at negatives with a 10X loupe give finer comparisons than seeing images here, but it is a second best.
Juan Valdenebro
07-10-2009, 13:17
No doubt it will be great to see the results... Lot of people are interested... I confess I check this thread daily, even before lenses were sent... I'll be patient, as the other 1,000 of us!
Juan,
I will start this weekend "testing the water", as they say. It is always for me a psychological pressure to arrive at the lens comparison set-up that is manageable and cost effective while pleasing most people in this thread.
Once I start though, there is no stopping me until it is all done.
Step 1: inspect each lens and write down in a computer file the detailed description and ownership of the lens.
edit: done!
Step 2: Write down the order of each lens for each roll for the lens comparisons. I like to balance between start-middle-end of roll for each lens.
edit:done!
Step 3: Get it all done. Here, the nightmare is to record for each taken shot the lens name, aperture and speed and then to match the resulting images against the record.
Step 4: Here, it will become more problematic since Roland will get the negative strips to be scanned by him, and I will not be able to match up my recorded lens list with the scans. I may have to use the silly looking small cards with exposure and lens information in each image. I hate that.Then the portraits can't be used for family sharing.
Oh well. This is the start then.
Juan Valdenebro
07-10-2009, 23:06
Hi Raid, thanks for sharing the plan! If you let me ask, don't you usually use slide film in your tests? I feel (but I may be wrong) that with negatives it's harder to see, because going positive implies an extra optical step involving another device... Even testing for b&w use, I shoot at least some slide film to compare lenses, both their general rendition and specific issues. Possibly it's just that I know too little about scanning... Good luck with that brave start!
Juan Valdenebro
07-11-2009, 01:52
I just saw -for several minutes- for the first time, your input and Roland's on flaring 35&40s... Amazing! What an important thread! Thank you both for all the effort.
Hi Raid, thanks for sharing the plan! If you let me ask, don't you usually use slide film in your tests? I feel (but I may be wrong) that with negatives it's harder to see, because going positive implies an extra optical step involving another device... Even testing for b&w use, I shoot at least some slide film to compare lenses, both their general rendition and specific issues. Possibly it's just that I know too little about scanning... Good luck with that brave start!
Juan,
I used slides exclusively for about 20 years,and then scanning came along and PS. It has been shown that negatives scan as well as transparencies,and maybe even better. The use of slides used to be the only way to get exactly back what was exposed on film. It is not as important for such lens comparisons. I am still used to ASA 50 slide film exposure and use a spot meter for "perfect" exposure of such film but I use nownegative film instead.
Since this particular lens comparison really is more about the ultimate resolution, the results may be looked at differently than earlier lens comparisons results in the past.
I just saw -for several minutes- for the first time, your input and Roland's on flaring 35&40s... Amazing! What an important thread! Thank you both for all the effort.
Thank you, Juan.
It started out for me as a fun project several years ago, and it has become a yearly event that I look forward to. At the very least, it shows results that have been viewed by many people here and that are often validated by the lens owners' own experiences with their lenses.
Does it "hurt", as some claim? I doubt it. If anyone feels the results are misleading, just offer your own input to set things straight when the results are posted here.
Today I did a test roll to see how ready I was for the comparison of 17 lenses or so. It was very hot outside,and I managed to take 36 exposures with 8 lenses. I always do such a start roll to test my readiness. It turned out that I had left at home the Summilux, so this was the first error. Then I noticed that I also had a Cv 50/2.5 with me, but it was not on my test list!
I drove home to quickly add the Summilux to my camera bag for Roll # 1,and then I found a suitable hood for the Lux. It took me a while to find a suitable hood for each of the lenses that did not arrive to me with a hood, plus my own lenses.
The "Roll 1" is now replaced on my list by "revised Roll 1".
The Heliar 50/3.5 was a pain in the waahoo for changing apertures. The easiest lenses to use were those by CV. I could easily read the aperture settings from behind the camera.
Now I am ready for the "lens fight".
kermaier
07-15-2009, 18:21
Then I noticed that I also had a Cv 50/2.5 with me, but it was not on my test list!
Have you updated the test list to include the CV 50/2.5, or have you decided to leave it out?
::Ari
The list has been updated, Ari. It was a typo.
I am not leaving out any lens that has been lent to me.
update: I have now taken four 36 exp. rolls of film. It took me one day to find a suitable location for the outdoor photos,and I believe that I succeeded in finding a good place in the shade. It was difficult to take photos at F90 with high levels of humidity. Some lenses were collapsible, and they would make me nervous as I was never sure whether the lenses were fully extended or not. Then, some lenses have the aperture ring rotate to the left while other rotate to the right. I do not believe that I made any errors!
The location chosen was in open shade which stayed in the same light level for over an hour. There is a board with the house number as my focus target,with lots of plants with leaves for possible selected target crops.
The remaining two rolls of film [for Roland] will be with Dana and/or Lina for portraits.
Then I will get the film developed and scanned commercially before mailing five rolls to Roland for careful scanning and treatment.
Then I will be able to make a special pairwise comparison between the two Heliar lenses.
I could any day post a few shots from the trial roll without any additional information about the lenses to get the interest level raised ....?
Truly a labor of love, Raid - thanks for doing this, very exciting!! :D
Thanks, Raid! Your efforts are appreciated. :)
Paul and Rico: I appreciate your trust in me. It is because of RFF members like the two of you and several other kind people that I am able to do such projects. In the end,the product is rather unique because of the lens selection and the identical photo targets used with the same camera and same film.
I threw into the mix of great lenses that were sent to me a few vintage lenses that I would like to evaluate. The Canon 50mm 1.2 1.4 1.5 and 1.8 should be interesting to compare at 2.0, 4.0,and 8.0.
I am also interested in matching up the two Heliar lenses to see whether the 3.5 really is king of sharpness or whether the 2.0 model is not just faster but actually better built and sharper.
I just inspected my trial test roll. The images look perfect. One lens seems to kick butt! Maybe I am wrong, but you will see.
The scan arrived with the scans numbered in reverse order, which threw me off for a little, but my choice of scene allowed me to see in the reflection of the window in the background the depth of field. Based on it, I was able to number the scans based on my lens/aperture test sheet. All results came out well, with one shot being repeated because I used 1/125 when I should have switched to 1/13, but I caught it at the time.
I duplicated this set-up a day later with three actual test rolls.
I used Kodak 100UC that I bought from Frank Petronia.
Just to show you the set-up, here are three images from three lenses at 4.0. Click on any small image for a larger file image at photobucket.com. I could post a large file image, but then some people will complain as they want to see the entire image.
click on image for larger image: [image nr.7]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-07-26A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-07-26A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-07-26A-1-1.jpg
click on image for larger image:[image nr. 13]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-13-20A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-13-20A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-13-20A-1.jpg
click on image for larger image:[image nr.15]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-15-18A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-15-18A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-15-18A-1.jpg
Let me know if the set-up is good or not. I focused on the house number. I used a heavy Gitzo tripod for camera support. Shutter speeds were 1/500 for f 2.0/ 1/125 for f 4.0 and 1/30 for f 8.0.
I have taken replicate shots, so if one image [due to human error] is non-optimal, there is a back-up image.
The three lenses used for the images above were:
Heliar 50mm/3.5 Heliar 50mm/2.0 Summicron 50mm/2.0 .... in no particular order.
Raid, I think you need to display the crops at 100% - they seem smaller compared to viewing the same section at full size.
This is larger than before, Paul.
It is not how the lens test image scans will be likesince Roland will use his own scanner to control each scan's properties.
I just got some quick commercial scans as a side product with the film developing and the I uploaded and cropped the scans with photobucket. It seemed to have resized the scans. Here, I went to PS to crop the photos, followed by uplaoding to photobucket.
crop from image nr.7:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-15-18Acrop.jpg
crop from image nr.13:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-13-20Acrop.jpg
crop from image nr.15:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-07-26Acrop.jpg
Here is a vertical crop for image nr.7. This way, you don't have to scroll sideways to see the image if you have a smaller screen.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-07-26Averticalcrop.jpg
Here is a vertical crop for image nr.13:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-13-20Averticalcrop.jpg
Here is a vertical crop for image nr.15:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-15-18Averticalcrop.jpg
This is only an early view of the results. Roland will have to decide what to do with the scans and crops ... etc. He has done a great job with selecting areas of the scans in the past.
RF_newbie
07-19-2009, 07:55
I’ve written the name of one lens that I expect to give a surprisingly good account of it’s self on a piece of paper and sealed it into an envelope.
I will then open the envelope with a flourish and astound the audience when the test results are in.
HAHAHA :D
HAHAHA :D
Steve said: "I’ve written the name of one lens that I expect to give a surprisingly good account of it’s self on a piece of paper and sealed it into an envelope.
I will then open the envelope with a flourish and astound the audience when the test results are in."
Steve: Start with these three lenses; which one looks best to your eyes?
Much better, thank you Raid. At first glance, the 3rd one looked sharpest, but I think it also has higher contrast which can make a photo look "sharper." The middle one, although lower contrast, is probably the sharper image - you can see more fine detail in the wicker chair in the background.
You picked a nice subject, Raid, this is going to be fun! :D
Much better, thank you Raid. At first glance, the 3rd one looked sharpest, but I think it also has higher contrast which can make a photo look "sharper." The middle one, although lower contrast, is probably the sharper image - you can see more fine detail in the wicker chair in the background.
You picked a nice subject, Raid, this is going to be fun! :D
Paul,
Instead of worrying about the 17 lenses, here are only three: Summicron, Heliar 3.5, Heliar 2.0. Which image goes with which lens?
We have here images nr. 7, nr. 13, and nr. 15.
Which one is the rigid Summicron?
It took me a day of driving around the historic downtown until I discovered a quiet road with old buildings and lush vegetation with all placed in the open shade. Anyways, the first roll was taken to test my alertness and readiness for the actual lens comparison. There should be enough material to pick from in a careful lens comparison.
Two days ago,I had with me three camera bags with a total of 17 lenses. I need one more round for portraits,and then additional pairwise match ups for Heliar 3.5 vs. 2.0 and CV 50/2.5 vs. Summarit-M 50/2.5.
One other thought, with commercially processed files, the machine will automatically make adjustments to the prints/files, so some of the differences that are seen may be artifactual (as far as contrast and color). I'm sure Roland will turn off all processing in his scans so that there is consistency between files...
RF_newbie
07-19-2009, 08:10
Much better, thank you Raid. At first glance, the 3rd one looked sharpest, but I think it also has higher contrast which can make a photo look "sharper." The middle one, although lower contrast, is probably the sharper image - you can see more fine detail in the wicker chair in the background.
You picked a nice subject, Raid, this is going to be fun! :D
Yes, #2 for sharpens.
I'm guessing that the 3rd image is the Heliar 3.5, which tends to hold contrast, yet still has a nice soft bokeh, wide open.
RF_newbie
07-19-2009, 08:19
Raid i do like #3 the best.
I won't take out the fun of guessing here, so I am not telling you which image comes from which lens.
One other thought, with commercially processed files, the machine will automatically make adjustments to the prints/files, so some of the differences that are seen may be artifactual (as far as contrast and color). I'm sure Roland will turn off all processing in his scans so that there is consistency between files...
Paul,
This was the main reason for Roland volunteering to do the scanning himself.
One other thought, with commercially processed files, the machine will automatically make adjustments to the prints/files, so some of the differences that are seen may be artifactual (as far as contrast and color). I'm sure Roland will turn off all processing in his scans so that there is consistency between files...
Paul,
This was the main reason for Roland volunteering to do the scanning himself. In the past, he would take the commercially scanned images from me.
lawrence
07-19-2009, 08:57
To my eye No.2 is best and, weirdly, it seems to have more depth of field...
To my eye No.2 is best and, weirdly, it seems to have more depth of field...
Lawrence,
I have read in the past similar comments by some people posting at RFF about some lenses showing more/less DOF than other lenses.
I had a heavy tripod stand at one place throughout the photography session, and I focused on the same point for all shots. The DOF should be the same for all lenses unless optical design factors play a role here.
To keep you guys guessing, the following vertical crop is either from :
Summarit-M 50/2.5, the CV 50/2.5, the CV Nokton 50/1.5 or from the Summilux? Which one is it, and is it better/worse than the one(s) you chose from the first three scans?
Let's call this one: image nr.27:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-27-6Averticalcrop.jpg
lawrence
07-19-2009, 09:32
I would say better than the first three and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the CV 50/2.5 since I have one and it's excellent, despite the low cost.
I would say better than the first three and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the CV 50/2.5 since I have one and it's excellent, despite the low cost.
Lawrence,
So you are saying that you like the fourth scan better than the scans from [Heliar 3.5, Heliar 2.0, rigid Summicron ... in any order]? Wow.
What exactly is it about the fourth scan that you see as somehow being better than the rest?
The correct lens name is one of these three:Summarit-M 50/2.5, the CV 50/2.5, the CV Nokton 50/1.5.
I sent you a pm.
DougFord
07-19-2009, 09:56
out of the four images, I prefer the first. I'll guess summicron.
out of the four images, I prefer the first. I'll guess summicron.
Hi Doug,
What is it about that image that makes you prefer it over the other three scans?
I sent you a pm regarding your guess.
I will guess the 2nd of the 3 scans is the heliar 50/2.
The scanned images weren't returned to you in order, and you don't have a tag or identifying # in the image, so you are guessing which lens is which, or which image was taken at which setting by your estimation of DOF in the reflection in the window??
I just inspected my trial test roll. The images look perfect. One lens seems to kick butt! Maybe I am wrong, but you will see.
The scan arrived with the scans numbered in reverse order, which threw me off for a little, but my choice of scene allowed me to see in the reflection of the window in the background the depth of field. Based on it, I was able to number the scans based on my lens/aperture test sheet. All results came out well, with one shot being repeated because I used 1/125 when I should have switched to 1/13, but I caught it at the time.
I duplicated this set-up a day later with three actual test rolls.
I used Kodak 100UC that I bought from Frank Petronia.
Just to show you the set-up, here are three images from three lenses at 4.0. Click on any small image for a larger file image at photobucket.com. I could post a large file image, but then some people will complain as they want to see the entire image.
click on image for larger image: [image nr.7]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-07-26A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-07-26A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-07-26A-1-1.jpg
click on image for larger image:[image nr. 13]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-13-20A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-13-20A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-13-20A-1.jpg
click on image for larger image:[image nr.15]
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/th_011331-R1-15-18A.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/?action=view¤t=011331-R1-15-18A.jpg)
crop for above image:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-15-18A-1.jpg
Let me know if the set-up is good or not. I focused on the house number. I used a heavy Gitzo tripod for camera support. Shutter speeds were 1/500 for f 2.0/ 1/125 for f 4.0 and 1/30 for f 8.0.
I have taken replicate shots, so if one image [due to human error] is non-optimal, there is a back-up image.
The three lenses used for the images above were:
Heliar 50mm/3.5 Heliar 50mm/2.0 Summicron 50mm/2.0 .... in no particular order.
DougFord
07-19-2009, 10:10
Raid -
Not to get too technical, I see the first image as having 'summicrony' character. Yes, i said 'summicrony'. :)
Raid -
Not to get too technical, I see the first image as having 'summicrony' character. Yes, i said 'summicrony'. :)
But Doug, what about the Heliarly character showing in the plants and the Cosina-iarly feature of the background?
Of course, you have heard of Heliar Clinton, haven't you!
Food for thought.
I will now leave with the kids to take them to Starbucks, followed by a portrait session for this thread.
Keep up your guessing here. :D
i think this is order- heliar f2, summicron, heliar f3.5
i like the first most - maybe more saturated than it should be - but i like contrast in that one...
Raid has us all guessing!
I am looking forward to the Heliar 3.5 v 2.0 showdown which will come later no doubt. I am also looking forward to the portraits "test" (from all lenses).
I agree with nzeeman, I also think the order is heliar 2, summicron, heliar 3.5. The fourth image, I'm not sure, although I do not think that it is the skopar, which has a softer look than the nokton/lux/summarit
The scanned images weren't returned to you in order, and you don't have a tag or identifying # in the image, so you are guessing which lens is which, or which image was taken at which setting by your estimation of DOF in the reflection in the window??
To answer your quesions, the answers are No and no and no.... etc.
I have target shots for start-up of a roll and the scans would just be in reversed from 36 to 1. Any other things to complain about, ampguy?
i think this is order- heliar f2, summicron, heliar f3.5
i like the first most - maybe more saturated than it should be - but i like contrast in that one...
I have a feeling you might be wrong here, but who knows.
I agree with nzeeman, I also think the order is heliar 2, summicron, heliar 3.5. The fourth image, I'm not sure, although I do not think that it is the skopar, which has a softer look than the nokton/lux/summarit
Paul,
Maybe you are wrong here about the first three images.
The fourth image is not a Skopar. Good guess.
I take notes for every shot I take for the lens comparisons, so I can match the scanned images with the lenses used and the corresponding aperture/speed.
In one instance, I used 1/125 when the speed selector should have been switched to 1/30. I then re-took the shot at 1/30 after carefully writing down on the test sheet this information. When I got back the scans, sure enough, one shot was underexposed for 1/125 and the correct exposure followed. I have such "markers" to help me with the match-up of scans with lenses ... etc. So far, I have not missed a case.
This is image nr.18 (scan #5). Which lens is it?
CV 50mm/2.5 or Summarit-M 50mm/2.5 or Summicron 50mm/2.0?
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-27-6Averticalcrop.jpg
You have now only seen images from five 50mm lenses.
These five lenses are all excellent overall, as can be seen in the scans.
Which is the most pleasing to your eyes and which would you pass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pphuang
I agree with nzeeman, I also think the order is heliar 2, summicron, heliar 3.5. The fourth image, I'm not sure, although I do not think that it is the skopar, which has a softer look than the nokton/lux/summarit
Paul,
Maybe you are wrong here about the first three images.
The fourth image is not a Skopar. Good guess.
Ahh, very interesting. I had made some assumptions about the drawing of the heliar 2 which I guess were not true. So that means I should flip 1 and 2. Still have no idea about the last 2 images, which look very very similar :)
Paul,
It is a fact that we have quite a few excellent 50mm lenses to choose from these days. It may be a blow to some that the less expensive lens may be at least as good optically than the more expensive lens.
The last two images were made by two different companies. They cost a different amount too.
This is a last scan from a 50mm lens with a max aperture of 2.5.Is it the Summarit-M 50/2.5 or is it the CV 50mm/2.5?
vertical crop of image nr. 21:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-21-12Averticalcrop.jpg
In the end, this is just a fun roll of film to get us all started to fine tune our senses. I have been giving feedback to some people here via a pm.
Paul asked me to post the larger sized full images for a better inspection.
There are these six lenses, and in no particular order [ at f 4.0]:
Heliar 50mm/3.5
Leica Summicron
Leica Summarit-M 50/2.5
CV 50/2.5
CV 50/1.5
Heliar 50/2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-04-29A-1.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-13-20A-2.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-01-32A-1.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-15-18A-2.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-07-26A-1.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Roll1OldSummer09/011331-R1-10-23A-2.jpg
I just took a look at the six scans, and I picked the Heliar 3.5 directly out of the group.
update: I will today have five rolls of film developed and scanned and then I will mail the negatives to Roland for personal scanning and "finger pointing" to areas in the negatives.
I am really looking forward to compare the Canon LTM lenses!
ItsReallyDarren
07-20-2009, 23:15
The lens tests are looking good. I'm definitely picking up some subtleties between the images but don't know enough about them to discern their characteristics.
I am sorting the five rolls, and very soon I will be mailing Roland the negatives. One of my own 50mm lenses is "out" due to internal haze in it. It is the 50mm/1.8. Too bad, as I really this lens. I should have better checked this lens.
I'm waiting ....
:)
Hi Roland,
I need to send you not just some negatives but I need to also send you a detailed list with lens names and aperture settings that match each negative sent to you. Quality assurance is mandatory here.
All rolls of film have one duplicate for each setting, so for scanning purposes, you really only need to scan half of the five rolls.
Give me another day, and I will mail you the film.
Email me your mailing address.
Thanks.
P.S. This is during a 10 minute lunch break for my class.
helenhill
07-21-2009, 13:49
P.S. This is during a 10 minute lunch break for my class.
Thats we we LOVE you Raid...hope this doesn't get me in Trouble w/ the Wife & Girls....:eek:
Cheers- H
Thank you, Helen.
My wife will forgive me.
I have just completed matching up each negative with the scans.
I know that using a piece of paper with information on the lens and aperture would save me hours of work, but I want to use the portraits of my daughters for my family, and I don't want to see in the image a sign with "Heliar 50mm 3.5 @ 8.0".
I got the still images easily, but with Lina and Dana competing for attention and them insisting on "modeling", it was very difficult to handle both girls and 17 lenses in very hot weather outdoors.
Still, I have obtained very useful results.
By quickly going through a slide show of all scans, the images taken at 2.0 clearly show up as "muddy" reflections in the window. I used 200%-400% magnification,and I can see in the "mirror" the aperture choices.
I also got used to the Heliar look.
The less expensive lenses clearly show at 2.0 why they are less expensive. Many of the vintage lenses had not chance, I'm afraid. The Summicron and the Summilux stayed their ground, though.
There is a good use for vintage lenses so sharpness wide open does not have to be the most important factor here.
I have just placed in the mail a small parcel for our Roland to enjoy.
Now, I may have specific paired comparisons to do.
It's just so hot outside.
Juan Valdenebro
07-22-2009, 09:16
So great now you'll do real portraits and also compare Heliars...
Thanks, raid!
We're all hungry like wolves for your results!
Thanks, Juan.
Actually, I have already done portraits, but I may have been standing too far from the girls when taking the photos. I need to be around 1.2m away for better focusing with small children.
Maybe a portrait session close to a window will do.
Here are two crops from a portrait session for the lens comparisons. It was too hot for the girls to stay happy throughout the shoot.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/alinaportrait.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/adanaportrait.jpg
RF_newbie
07-22-2009, 21:09
Here are two crops from a portrait session for the lens comparisons. It was too hot for the girls to stay happy throughout the shoot.
Yes Raid......... they look like they need ice cream !
Yes Raid......... they look like they need ice cream !
They got ice cream at home. I know, as I cleaned up the "ice creamy" table in the kitchen where they had their ice cream.
It is just too much to ask of a child. Modeling is bad enough, now I added the heat and the insects and humidity, and it was no fun for them.:eek:
I will have one more roll for LTM/M lenses and one roll for the Contax mount lenses and then I will start asking the lens owners to contact me regarding the returning of their lenses. I promised to complete the lens comparison by the end of July, and I am still on target.
I am very eager to see further analysis done after Roland's scanning.
RF_newbie
07-25-2009, 21:54
Looking forward to the next shots Raid !
I took a roll of film with these lenses today:
1 Heliar 50/2 4.0
2 Heliar 50/3.5 4.0
3 CV Nokton 1.5 4.0
4 Summicron 4.0
5 Summilux 1.4 4.0
6 Summarit-M 2.5 4.0
7 CV 50/2.5 4.0
8. Canon 50/1.2 4.0
9. Canon 50/1.4 4.0
10 Canon 50/1.5 4.0
11. Nikkor 50/2 4/0
12 Elmar 50/2.8 4.0
13 Tessar 50/2.8 4.0
14 Sonnar 5cm 1.5 4.0
15 Sonnar 5cm 2.0 4.0
16 I-50 rigid 50 3.5 4.0
I chose the kitchen for my photography and close to an A/C opening for cool air. I got two replicates per lens to take care of [human] focusing error. My goal is to post crops to see if we can identify the sharper lenses or not.
Juan Valdenebro
07-27-2009, 07:19
OK !
Sixteen 50s @f/4, wow! That's a serious group! Now we'll have to take a good look at all those crops. What a shame my screens (two normal , small laptops) won't be enough to tell by myself... But I can imagine there will be a ton of comments around here very soon!
Thanks Raid!
Hello Juan,
Yes, we all depend on the joint input by many RFF members viewing this thread.
There is always a "pause" between my photo taking and Roland's input. He is now working hard at making the scans for 5 rolls of film.
I am simply wrapping up the lens comparison photography by a final marathon 50mm parade of lenses. I will next take one roll of several Contax mount lenses, and then I will post myself the less sophisticated lens comparison while Roland will show us finer details.
Got your first package Raid. Will scan in the next couple of evenings.
Cheers,
Roland.
Juan Valdenebro
07-27-2009, 10:58
Patience is our name when it comes to seeing your good lens comparisons... Scanning all that stuff will take days for sure.
Brian Sweeney
07-27-2009, 12:49
What's sad- picking up an M8 would make lens testing easier, and probably cheaper.
My biggest fear would be Kodak and Fuji would both go under if I got an M8... My local Sam's club will be getting 20 rolls shot with my Leica Mini, Voigtlander R2, and Canon VI-T. I travel light...
What's sad- picking up an M8 would make lens testing easier, and probably cheaper.
My biggest fear would be Kodak and Fuji would both go under if I got an M8... My local Sam's club will be getting 20 rolls shot with my Leica Mini, Voigtlander R2, and Canon VI-T. I travel light...
Brian,
This is the way life is; there will always be changes, and some things we treasure may become obsolete. I will use film as long as I can afford to, but when the time comes to switch to digital, I will then choose an M55.:D
Seriously, there is a lot fun and comeraderie in doing such a project. The labor is hard at times, but the rewards can be great. You already know this well from all of your kind contributions to so many of us here.
Got your first package Raid. Will scan in the next couple of evenings.
Cheers,
Roland.
You should be getting the last roll by tomorrow or so.
Thanks.
SteveM_NJ
07-27-2009, 15:03
Raid,
Be sure to bring your girls to the computer and let them know their efforts as MODELs were very much appreciated, (hot/humid/tiring/bored - could have been trouble, but it sounds like they were troopers).
We all appreciate your efforts, and your family for putting up with the work done to support our interests.
Thanks go out to you all.
(I'll keep reading/viewing the results and pictures, as they are available).
Thank you, Steve. I think that my girls are understanding the concept of posting images on the computer.
If anyone who sent me a lens reads this, please contact me to get your lens back.
...when the time comes to switch to digital, I will then choose an M55.:D
Will the M55 be full frame? :rolleyes:
Will the M55 be full frame? :rolleyes:
Sure, I just do not know whether people will call these objects "camera" in the year 3125 ;)
Perhaps by the year 3125 all lenses will have the 'vaseline' effect button... which I will need by then given the wrinkes that one can develop in 1000-odd years. :)
As you see, there is no reason to worry about death for film cameras while we are alive.
By the way, Roland has started scanning negatives, so we will get some results whenever he is done with his first batch.
I will try to get today a roll developed and scanned. My scans will of course be no competition with Roland's scans, but they will also provide some useful information on 50mm lenses. I tried out using small font letters on a piece of paper to see which lenses can capture it and which cannot.
I will this weekend take the eighth roll of film for the lens comparisons. I initially thought that 4-5 rolls will do the job well.
If anyone wants to chip in $3 towards the expenses, this would be welcomed.
paypal: ramin@uwf.edu
Thanks.
I have here five photos at 4.0 and taken with the following lenses (in correct order). Does your screen viewing allow you to see differences?
Focus point was the lower cross on the right of the paper.
5. Summilux 50 1.4
2. Heliar 50 3.5
1. Heliar 50 2.0
3. CV Nokton 50 1.5
4. Summicron 50 2.0
The piece of paper has in small font written on it in a few lines "can you read".
Lens 1:Heliar 50 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-00-0A.jpg
Lens 2:Heliar 50 3.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-01-1A.jpg
Lens 3:CV Nokton 50 1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-02-2A.jpg
Lens 4:Summicron 50 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-03-3A.jpg
Lens 5:Summilux 50 1.4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-04-4A.jpg
Raid,
Tried to send $3 through Paypal, but it said invalid email address.
Also, where is the focus point with the above images? Chart or Figure?
Here, we have the following lenses (in correct order). Is this group of lenses somehow different from the previous group?
7. CV 50 2.5
8. Canon 50 1.2
6. Summarit-M 50 2.5
10. Canon 50/1.5
9. Canon 50/1.4
Lens 6:Summarit-M 50 2.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-05-5A.jpg
Lens 7:CV 50 2.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-06-6A.jpg
Lens 8:Canon 50 1.2
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-07-7A.jpg
Lens 9:Canon 50/1.4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-08-8A.jpg
Lens 10:Canon 50/1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-09-9A.jpg
Lenses in correct order:
15: Sonnar 5cm 2.0
13: Tessar 50 2.8
11: Nikkor 50 2.0
12. Elmar 50 2.8
14. Sonnar 5cm 1.5
Lens 11:Nikkor 50 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-11-11A.jpg
Lens 12:Elmar 50 2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-12-12A.jpg
Lens 13:Tessar 50 2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-13-13A.jpg
Lens 14:Sonnar 5cm 1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-14-14A.jpg
Lens 15:Sonnar 5cm 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-10-10A.jpg
I will tomorrow provide you with the correct ordering of the lensesfrom 1-15.
The modern lenses have a different look to them than the vintage lenses do.
Some older lenses do quite well.
I am waiting for Roland's scans to find finer differences.This is lots of fun, isn't it.
Thanks.
edited: I posted the correct order a few seconds ago.
I lost only one image in this roll. One shot by the Heliar 50 2 was in an incomplete extension of the collapsible lens, so everything is OOF. I posted the first 15 images where all are in focus.
Resolution/Sharpness: Take a look at the lines [numbered from 1,2,3,4,5, ... etc.] with increasing fonts. At which line number can you see the letters clearly for a given lens. Some are clear at Line 6 some at Line 5 ... and so on.
1 Heliar 50/2 4.0
2 Heliar 50/3.5 4.0
3 CV Nokton 1.5 4.0
4 Summicron 4.0
5 Summilux 1.4 4.0
6 Summarit-M 2.5 4.0
7 CV 50/2.5 4.0
8. Canon 50/1.2 4.0
9. Canon 50/1.4 4.0
10 Canon 50/1.5 4.0
11. Nikkor 50/2 4/0
12 Elmar 50/2.8 4.0
13 Tessar 50/2.8 4.0 (made for M-42 and adapted to LTM)
14 Sonnar 5cm 1.5 4.0
15 Sonnar 5cm 2.0 4.0
Use 400% magnification as you view the crops.
I see the Canon 50/1.4 pop up in sharpness when compared with the Canon 50/1.2.
1. Heliar 50/2
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-00-0Acrop.jpg
2. 50/3.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-01-1Acrop.jpg
3. CV Nokton 1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-02-2Acrop.jpg
4. Summicron
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-03-3Acrop.jpg
5. Summilux 1.4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-04-4Acrop.jpg
6. Summarit-M 2.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-05-5Acrop.jpg
7. CV 50/2.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-06-6Acrop.jpg
8.Canon 50/1.2
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-07-7Acrop.jpg
9.Canon 50/1.4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-08-8Acrop.jpg
10. Canon 50/1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-09-9Acrop.jpg
11. Nikkor 50/2
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-10-10Acrop.jpg
12. Elmar 50/2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-11-11Acrop.jpg
13. Tessar 50/2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-12-12Acrop.jpg
14. Sonnar 5cm 1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-13-13Acrop.jpg
15. Sonnar 5cm 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-14-14Acrop.jpg
I mean this:
Heliar 50mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-00-0AcropL.jpg
Heliar 50mm 3.5:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-01-1AcropL.jpg
Zeiss Sonnar 5cm 1.5:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-07-7AcropL.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.2:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-13-13AcropL.jpg
There are differences in sharpness here. [are there?]
Two lenses are "modern" lenses and two lenses are vintage lenses.
Raid,
Tried to send $3 through Paypal, but it said invalid email address.
Also, where is the focus point with the above images? Chart or Figure?
Thanks, Randolph.
email is ramin@uwf.edu
The focus point was on + sign on the lower right.
By the way, I have now given away the correct order of the 15 lenses. Just scroll back one page.
Roland will not cover this roll of film, so it is OK for me to give away the information.The images have no labeling but in the beginning of each of the postings I have the lens information. Don't look there if you want to see whether you can identify a lens or not by looking at the images. I know several lenses at heart now. I can look at a roll of film [scans],and I know most lenses from their look.
Let me know if you can see "something" in the posted images or not. I used aperture 4.0 for all photos here. What Roland will post will/may have apertures 2.0/4.0/8.0.
Without "knowing" the signatures of all the lenses, I think its very difficult to match photos to lenses, although much easier to compare photos to each other and then decide which "look" is desirable.
There are some magnification differences among the posted files - is this inherent in the different lenses (I'm assuming all were taken at the same distances), or just related to the way the images were cropped? That also makes comparing resolution between lenses a little more difficult.
I will say, I'm surprised at the comparative softness of the Nokton 1.5 (image 3) when viewed at higher mags, since this lens has a reputation for being extremely sharp...
Paul,
I used a heavy tripod with all photos, so changes in magnification should not be due to the photography but the crop.
I would wait until Roland posts his scans before making any final comments on any of the lenses in this project.
The Heliar lenses have their own signatures, and they really can be identified once you get to know each lens's rendering of images.
The older lenses mostly are lower contrast, but the Canon 50/1.4 and the CZJ Sonnar 5cm 1.5 still deliver quite well.
The rigid Summicron looks better to my eyes after each round of comparisons with other lenses. It really is a Champ by itself for such an old lens.
Older lenses can be used for situations when sharpness and high contrast is not desired in an image. Comparing such lenses to ultra modern lenses with the reputation for ultimate sharpness should be taken with a grain of salt.
ItsReallyDarren
07-31-2009, 11:15
It's interesting to see the shift in color between lenses. Some of the older lenses have a yellowish tone while the newer ones have a bluish tone.
I am a little surprised with the Nokton, some areas look blurry or soft. I'm interested in seeing how the rest of the images stack up against each other when they make their way back from Roland.
The posted crops are enlarged greatly, so there is fuzzziness.
The negatives that Roland is scanning showed excellent sharpness, so having multiple testing done is always a good idea and that's why I use up lots of film each time. I have a second batch of images similar to what I posted on the piece of paper and the letters, and I will look at these to see if the Nokton is doing better in those. In the last batch of images, the target areas were not on the same plane, and this is one of the reasons [maybe] that sharpness is not conistent across the image. The images I took outdoors and which Roland is scanning were parallel to the film plane so focus should be even across the images.
1. Heliar 50mm 3.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-16-16Acrop.jpg
2. Nokton CV 50 1.5
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-17-17Acrop.jpg
3. Canon 50 1.2
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-22-22Acrop.jpg
4. Canon 50 1.4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/664769-R1-23-23Acrop.jpg
The number of views keeps on increasing, and we need some feedback.
************************************************** *********
I have completed all photography for this project today, so I will start packing up the 7 lenses to mail them back to their owners.
I will use the addresses written on the parcels in which I received the lenses unless I hear otherwise via a pm or email from any of the lens owners.
I very much appreciate the trust in me to loan me such beautiful lenses.
************************************************** **********
I hope that Roland will soon post his link for his smugmug account with the results. Thanks a lot to Roland for his volunteer labor intensive worlk for all of us here. Without his support I may not have been able to do such a project. Roland has also helped greatly with previosu lens comparison projects.
I get a "free" lens checking of my lenses each time. This time, I found out that my Canon 50/1.8 needs cleaning. The rest of my vintage lenses turned out to be fine, which is always reassuring for me. Eddy will get my Canon whenever I find the time to mail it to him.
If you take a look at the 15 images posted of the sheet of paper,and if you look at the line starting with the number 7 [take the one above middle of the page]. Note the first few letters "a" and the clarity or lack of clarity in the opening for the letter a. I go to image 1, followed by pushing down Ctrl and using the mouse to make the screen view very large. I postion the image such that I see the line starting with 7. aaaaaaaaaaaaaa, and then I scroll down across the 15 images to see which lens clearly shows the aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and which does not.
I lost only one image in this roll. One shot by the Heliar 50 2 was in an incomplete extension of the collapsible lens, so everything is OOF. I posted the first 15 images where all are in focus.
Once extended, the 50/2 rotates clockwise to 'lock' in the extended position.
Raid I have an entire roll like your image, where a friend used the camera and forgot to extend the lens. Think 2-inches of vaseline on lens! Or, mega-bokeh :)
Once extended, the 50/2 rotates clockwise to 'lock' in the extended position.
Raid I have an entire roll like your image, where a friend used the camera and forgot to extend the lens. Think 2-inches of vaseline on lens! Or, mega-bokeh :)
Hi Fergus,
My back-up shot on the same roll with this lens had the lens extended. I don't think that I had done such an error if it had been the only lens I worked with that day. It just gets challenging with fifteen lenses.
The 50/2 seems to be an excellent lens.If a 2.0 max aperture can be obtained, then it is interesting to find out whether the Heliar 50 3.5 really is sharper [or not] than this lens.
The 50/2 seems to be an excellent lens.If a 2.0 max aperture can be obtained, then it is interesting to find out whether the Heliar 50 3.5 really is sharper [or not] than this lens.
I am looking forward to your direct comparisons with the f3.5 lens at various apetures.
I quite like the look of the heliar at f2.
I am looking forward to your direct comparisons with the f3.5 lens at various apetures.
I quite like the look of the heliar at f2.
The scans will soon reveal any differences if they exist at 4.0 and 8.0.
I think that both lenses will come out very well.
I did not in the end do an entire roll of Heliar comparisons since both lenses are very sharp.
Fergus, I sent you a pm on it.
P.S. Your reminder has now made me get second thoughts about it, but the parcels are wrapped up. I have a Heliar 3.5, so in the near future, I could ask here for a one lens loaner [Heliar 2.0]and it does not have to be you again, Fergus,as you live in Australia.
On the other hand, the Heliar 50/2 has not been wrapped up yet for shipping!
With 8 lenses and then me adding 7 more, it is too time consuming to manage 15 lenses in depth. The Heliar pair does however warrant a separate comparison.
I actually had this thought:"if I had an M8, then could easily ...."!
On the other hand, the Heliar 50/2 has not been wrapped up yet for shipping!
I can't help with an M8 :(
But seeing as you already have the Heliar it would be a waste not to take this opportunity. There is no rush to return the lens.
Fergus,
I will use my own Heliar 50 3.5 which is in the box, and of course, your Heliar 50 2.0.
I will include available light test shots, even though the 50 3.5 was not meant for such conditions, having a max aperture of 3.5. The 50 2 Heliar is more comparable with the Summicron or other 50 2 lenses.
I just took some shots with the two Heliar lenses for bokeh effect with indoor lights.
Heliar 2.0 @ 2.0-2.8-4.0-5.6-8.0
Heliar 3.5 @ 4.0-5.6-8.0
Tomorrow I may take another shot at it. I will not rush it.
The Heliar 50 2.0 is about twice as heavy as the Heliar 50 3.5:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/P1020138.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/P1020141.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/P1020128.jpg
To me, it looks really incredible, but the Sonnar 1.5 has a better resolution (with low contrast) than the famous Heliar 3.5... or is it a problem of sharpening???
To me, it looks really incredible, but the Sonnar 1.5 has a better resolution (with low contrast) than the famous Heliar 3.5... or is it a problem of sharpening???
The posted images so far have been commercially scanned, and that's why Roland stepped in to provide us with "custom" scanning by which we can [hopefully] identify small differences. I did not use any PS tools at all here. These are scns directly from a Fuji Frontier.
The old Sonnar 5cm 1.5 is incredibly good, and so is the rigid Summicron.
I just hope that Roland will soon end this torture for us.
im very impressed by heliar 2.0 - i think that it is sharpest in this group - followed by canon 1.4 , heliar 3.5 and summicron are pretty close and then summilux.
i think that heliar will lose its advantage wide open - but we will see...
Most lenses do much better when closed down.
Roland has completed the scanning, and now he will "really work" to get the comparisons lined up.
I double checked the list which Roland created in an EXCEL file with my onw files. All information matches, and we should soon see some results here. Roland always refuses to give me any information that may reveal results beforehand. He withholds commenting to avoid bias.
Not to change the topic, this is a scan of an image taken with the old Zeiss Jena 5cm 1.5. The lens is very sharp but of low contrast. Therefore I like it for outdoors portraits of people.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/145905-R1-13-12.jpg
helenhill
08-04-2009, 15:56
Gorgeous Glow...Gorgeous Girls!!
Thank you, Helen. This lens is from the 30's, and it was adjusted by Brian for LTM. The glass is very clean after all these years.
That is a nice shot.
Was it shot at 1.5? The bokeh is very gentle.
Thank you, Fergus. The open shade requires an aperture of 2.8~5.6 in most cases for me. Even with an ASA100 film, it was most likely f 2.8-4.
It is easy to see why there is a following for 'old' glass. I like my canon 100/3.5 for similar reasons.
I traded off my [heavy and beautiful] Canon 85mm 1.9 for some lens, and then I bought a 100mm 3.5. It is a jewel that is one of Canon's best kep secrets.
Today,I mailed off all lenses except the Heliar 50/2 which I am keeping a liitle longer to complete the Heliar match-up.
From the 6 rolls that Raid sent me, 4 showed the same scene, photographed multiple times with Leica and Contax, and the different lenses mounted, and at different apertures (f2, f4, and f8 for all lenses capable of f2, and wide open, at f4 and f8 for slower lenses). To get consistency, I scanned everything on my 5000 ED with Vuescan, the same color settings, light IR correction, and the same sharpening done in Vuescan. From the 2-3 choices that I had for every lens/aperture combo, I manually picked what I considered the best photo. Then I cropped and assembled as shown below.
To show center and field resolution, and OOF performance, respectively, I picked 3 crop areas from the photo, like this:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613819137_rBqHE-L.jpg
Here are the results:
From the center:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613824184_CVNwF-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613821770_xghJP-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613819728_JwzeQ-XL.jpg
From the left border:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613825012_2efbH-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613822594_RcC2c-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613820401_s2BJT-XL.jpg
The reflection in the window (for OOF):
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613825842_EK2WB-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613823396_oF6RY-XL.jpg
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613821061_ka8LM-XL.jpg
I hope the lens name captions are evident. "Rit" = Summarit, and "Crn" = Summicron, for example.
Higher resolution versions of the above can be found in
http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/9196210_YBLFy
Cheers,
Roland.
ItsReallyDarren
08-07-2009, 23:40
This looks amazing. Raid and Roland have put in some excellent work between shooting, scanning, and compiling the results.
Thank you and we all look forward to geeking out!
Endlich!!!
Thank You Ferider. Very interesting results. My first impression is that J8 is considerably sharper than J3 overall. I've always thought that J8 is a bit underrated.
In my eyes the "best" ones overall are CV1.5 and Can1.4.
Defintely worth the wait!! A big thanks to Raid and Roland for putting all this together - some extremely interesting comparisons...
Wow, amazing results!! Is it just me, or is the Lux blowing everything else out of the water!!??
Wow, amazing results!! Is it just me, or is the Lux blowing everything else out of the water!!??
Ahh, now this is where the fun begins because the interpretation of the results will be quite subjective in terms of our personal tastes...
Looking at the Lux versus the CV1.5, which is easy since they are right next to each other, the center resolution looks quite comparable for both lenses, but the contrast is somewhat higher wide open on the Lux, but then maybe a touch lower as you stop down. Looking at the second set, the Lux looks a little washed out wide open compared to the CV - is this from a little veiling flare?? Then, looking at the third set, the bokeh with the CV looks much smoother to my eye than the Lux. So, which do you prefer?? :D
Raid, is the lux a pre-asph or the asph version?
Both the Lux and the Canon 50/1.8 showed flare in the test. Apparently, the Canon is a bit hazed. For the Lux you can see it in the border crop at f2.
I tried to assemble the pics to allow comparisons of "competitors". For example, I put all Sonnars on the same sheet. I found it interesting in the OOF crop that the Lux and Cron behave very similarly at f2, when the Nokton clearly was smoother.
In my mind, the Nokton is one of the best performers in this test. But then, the Color Skopar isn't so bad either. And the classic Tessar is outstanding, for a lens of this age.
Just a couple of first comments. :)
Cheers,
Roland.
Wow, amazing results!! Is it just me, or is the Lux blowing everything else out of the water!!??
It does look good wide-open! (looking at the '435' at f2)
Ahh, now this is where the fun begins because the interpretation of the results will be quite subjective in terms of our personal tastes...
Looking at the Lux versus the CV1.5, which is easy since they are right next to each other, the center resolution looks quite comparable for both lenses, but the contrast is somewhat higher wide open on the Lux, but then maybe a touch lower as you stop down. Looking at the second set, the Lux looks a little washed out wide open compared to the CV - is this from a little veiling flare?? Then, looking at the third set, the bokeh with the CV looks much smoother to my eye than the Lux. So, which do you prefer?? :D
Raid, is the lux a pre-asph or the asph version?
Paul,
I mailed off the lens yesterday, so I cannot check it out. Maybe the initial lens listings have the answer,or the owner of this lens will contribute ...
Yes, there will be personal preferences, and this is valid. Photographers may have different tastes in lenses.
Both the Lux and the Canon 50/1.8 showed flare in the test. Apparently, the Canon is a bit hazed. For the Lux you can see it in the border crop at f2.
I tried to assemble the pics to allow comparisons of "competitors". For example, I put all Sonnars on the same sheet. I found it interesting in the OOF crop that the Lux and Cron behave very similarly at f2, when the Nokton clearly was smoother.
In my mind, the Nokton is one of the best performers in this test. But then, the Color Skopar isn't so bad either. And the classic Tessar is outstanding, for a lens of this age.
Just a couple of first comments. :)
Cheers,
Roland.
Thank you, my friend.
You and I together create good lens comparisons. I am glad that all our efforts have resulted in something that many people will enjoy going over and over.
Yes, there will be personal preferences, and this is valid. Photographers may have different tastes in lenses.
The Heliar 50/2 is clearly the 'winner'.
:D:D:D
To show center and field resolution, and OOF performance, respectively, I picked 3 crop areas from the photo, like this:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/613819137_rBqHE-L.jpg
Cheers,
Roland.
It is interesting that I looked at these areas of each frame [the sign and the window] when I was eye balling the corresponding low resolution scans before mailing off the rolls to Roland. It took me many hours to find this set-up in the historic downtown area of Pensacola. I also looked at the plants, but I chose the front row and to the left of the sign.
This looks amazing. Raid and Roland have put in some excellent work between shooting, scanning, and compiling the results.
Thank you and we all look forward to geeking out!
Darren,
Without people like you to mail me lenses, there would be no such lens comparisons. Roland's input was crucial. Thank you, Roland. After doing the photography, I am usually worn out and need to catch up with work, so I would not have been able to do such scanning.
I tried to assemble the pics to allow comparisons of "competitors".
Thanks for your efforts! And Raids too!
To my eyes, there is little at F4 and F8 to differentiate between the Heliar 2 and 3.5 - looking at the '435' sign and the plants.
Am I missing something obvious to those with more experienced eyes?
Do we rather need to wait for Raid's detailed 3.5-v-2.0 Heliar comparison?
Fergus.
Looking at the '435' sign... the CV2.5 lens seems 'better' at 2.5 than at f4 or f8? This looks to be a nice lens when used wide open.
And stopped-down, both jupiter lenses seem to produce the goods.
Fergus,
If such scans don't show differences, there exist none for all practical purposes. The one setting not tested here is the bokeh in available light. In my past lens comparisons, that part was always done, but then I skipped the outdoor images. Here, I favored outdoor images since high resolution lenses may [or not] reveal superiority when many details are in the image setting. In my next roll of film I will have results on bokeh for the two Heliar lenses. It will be simply aabout which OOF rendering you prefer.
Looking at the '435' sign... the CV2.5 lens seems 'better' at 2.5 than at f4 or f8? This looks to be a nice lens when used wide open.
And stopped-down, both jupiter lenses seem to produce the goods.
There are lenses out there that have such a property; excelling at wide open.
i think the cron wide open is winner - but he also lose resolution stopped down. second goes canon 1.4 @f2 and then goes the lux.
as for oof heliar f2 is clear winner - creamy at every aperture.
Both the Lux and the Canon 50/1.8 showed flare in the test. Apparently, the Canon is a bit hazed. For the Lux you can see it in the border crop at f2.
I tried to assemble the pics to allow comparisons of "competitors". For example, I put all Sonnars on the same sheet. I found it interesting in the OOF crop that the Lux and Cron behave very similarly at f2, when the Nokton clearly was smoother.
In my mind, the Nokton is one of the best performers in this test. But then, the Color Skopar isn't so bad either. And the classic Tessar is outstanding, for a lens of this age.
Just a couple of first comments. :)
Cheers,
Roland.
Roland and Raid -- Thank you for all your work on this comparison. Very, very interesting results here. I am looking at the scans Roland put up, and was about to post something about the Canon 50/1.8 when I saw Roland's comment above. I'm surprised the lens did not do better, and I agree that the sample appears to show some haze. Interesting, but not surprising, that the two CV 50s hold their own here. I also thought the Elmar 2.8 did pretty well.
Wow, amazing results!! Is it just me, or is the Lux blowing everything else out of the water!!??
The lux is very good indeed, but in the first set of scans I think the CV 50/2.5 is better.
Concentrating on the first set of comparison shots, I think all the older 50/1.5 lenses held their own pretty well, which is a testament to these remarkable optics. Also, the warmer tones given by the Canon 50/1.5 are pretty evident in this set (one of the reasons I happen to like that lens).
Saw that too, Steve. Very clearly does the Canon 1.5 generate warmer tones when compared to the 50/1.4.
I was quite surprised by the Color Skopar since it gets mixed reviews. Performance does seem similar to the Summarit at a quarter of the price. I wish the Elmar-M (one of my lenses) would have been in the test, but then again, I should blame myself, shouldn't I ? :)
Cheers,
Roland.
Note that while the lux @ f2 looks light and with flare on the green leaves, but with extreme detail, while the cv2.5 @ f2.5 crop looks like it got more exposure, probably half to an extra stop, so more film saturation, less flare, and less shadow detail. This is where a stepless shutter would have been useful for equal exposures. Would also be interesting to see b/w crops.
The lux is very good indeed, but in the first set of scans I think the CV 50/2.5 is better.
Concentrating on the first set of comparison shots, I think all the older 50/1.5 lenses held their own pretty well, which is a testament to these remarkable optics. Also, the warmer tones given by the Canon 50/1.5 are pretty evident in this set (one of the reasons I happen to like that lens).
I agree w/ you, Ted, looking at the leaves shots. I think the summarit is even better than the 'lux in that comparison, though.
Raid and Roland
Thanks a lot for that test!
I guess that like most of us here, I was following some of the lenses tested very closely.
The CS seems ok, but I think that it may have gotten its bad repas due to too much sample variation. The Heliar f/2 do seem softer fully open.
I wonder about the exposure differences between, say, the cs and the elmarit at the same aperture.
maybe the CS aperture is a bit optimistic...
Drambuie
08-08-2009, 11:26
I have two 50mm Skopars, chrome and black used for different purposes on different cameras. The chrome one is "plenty sharp" at f2.5, noticeably better at f4-5.6, and with a small improvement at f8: contrast is very good. The black version initially appeared to be much less sharp, and possibly a tad less contrasty .......
But I have recently realised that the chrome lens was only used at wider apertures while the black one was only (infrequently) used at smaller apertures, namely f11 & f16, were it appeared to be a somewhat mediocre performer.
Looking at the above results, I am beginning to think that the noticeable softening above f8, suggests that the Skopar may be close to diffraction limited by f11 - and the roll-off is pretty steep, evidently affecting centre sharpness and contrast. Of course, this is not based on a fair, side-by-side comparison, but it may help to explain why some folks rate the lens highly, and others do not. I like it.
Austerby
08-08-2009, 12:35
This post is in danger of becoming a victim to it's own success!
I'm late to this party but interested in the outcome - is there a quick link to the results that saves me from wading through ten (10!) pages of comments?
Roland and Raid -- Thank you for all your work on this comparison. Very, very interesting results here. I am looking at the scans Roland put up, and was about to post something about the Canon 50/1.8 when I saw Roland's comment above. I'm surprised the lens did not do better, and I agree that the sample appears to show some haze. Interesting, but not surprising, that the two CV 50s hold their own here. I also thought the Elmar 2.8 did pretty well.
I only recognized the haze after I saw the initial results. There is haze towards the back of the lens. Interstingly enough, my second 50/1.8 has just been cleaned professional for haze and is on it s way back to me.
This post is in danger of becoming a victim to it's own success!
I'm late to this party but interested in the outcome - is there a quick link to the results that saves me from wading through ten (10!) pages of comments?
Be patient and just go back [from here] one page until photos show up. It is not hard to do. :bang:
Is it possible for the Heliar 50 3.5 @ 4.0 to display more depth of field than the Heliar 50mm 2.0 @ 4.0? Or maybe the question should be; do two lenses when set to 4.0 always actually are at 4.0 or do differences exist?
Is it extra sharpness with the Heliar 3.5 that suggests extra depth of field?
I have three other rolls with information that I will gradually release after the images posted in this thread have been absorbed well.
Thanks for your efforts! And Raids too!
To my eyes, there is little at F4 and F8 to differentiate between the Heliar 2 and 3.5 - looking at the '435' sign and the plants.
Am I missing something obvious to those with more experienced eyes?
Do we rather need to wait for Raid's detailed 3.5-v-2.0 Heliar comparison?
Fergus.
Actually, I think the comparisons here are very informative and might be enough to help one decide about one lens versus another. The Heliar 2 at f2 looks soft on the first set, but then gives comparable sharpness to the Heliar 3.5 at f4 and f8. The colors with the 3.5 look a little darker/more muted. On the second set, the details on the leaves look a little clearer with the 3.5 at f4, but then looks the same at f8. As you look at the second and third sets, it also looks like the images are darker with the Heliar 2 compared to the 3.5, even at f8, suggesting light fall off at the edges with the faster lens. The bokeh looks pretty smooth with both.
Saw that too, Steve. Very clearly does the Canon 1.5 generate warmer tones when compared to the 50/1.4.
I was quite surprised by the Color Skopar since it gets mixed reviews. Performance does seem similar to the Summarit at a quarter of the price. I wish the Elmar-M (one of my lenses) would have been in the test, but then again, I should blame myself, shouldn't I ? :)
Cheers,
Roland.
The Skopars have a reputation for being sharp lenses, but also very high contrast. Very eye catching at first, but it can wear on you over time. I think its the high contrast that ends up being the deal killer for many people - very unforgiving on bright days, and also a bit harsh with digital. The results with the summarit are actually quite revealing - a modern lens that has a much more moderate contrast (similar to the older lenses), and is very consistent across the frame (the light fall off with the CV2.5 at the edges seems much more severe). This type of performance can be very desirable on a digital camera, and confirms why I enjoy shooting this lens on an M8 and also with BW film...
I am glad that the lens comparisons are making sense and are useful. I am a statistician, so I believe in tests done sequentially and repeatedly to confirm or refute existing beliefs about some unknown parameter(s). Lens testing is similar in nature. The more often we do the real life "testing", the more acurate and more precise the findings will be.
I am starting to favor the results for the Heliar 50 3.5 [forgive me, Fergus].
I will have the Heliar 50 2.0 on loan for a few months, so I will use this lens for my family photography whenever I can.
I am quite happy that some of the vintage lenses did so well here. The Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.5 both did really well.
Maybe the real winner here is the rigid Summicron, displaying sharpness that rivals modern lenses.
Great work. It is interesting to see how well the CV 50f2,5 was doing. It was a lens that got a bad rap early on - obviously the wrong conclusion. I have always liked mine ( all three of them!)..
The Heliar's are not bad, the f2 is a bit soft (not unsharp - just "mellow") at f2, but by f4 it is pretty close to the Heliar f3.5 at f4.
Nice to see how well the J8 did. Goes to prove that it is not the price that dictates quality of image.
Recently got back from vacation (M4, Elmar 50/2.8 classic), and just finished my perusal of the test results. While a Zeiss fan, I thought the Tessar and Opton did quite poorly. My submitted lens (Summilux v2) looks great: amazing sharpness and contrast @ f/2, and remarkably consistent rendition through the aperture range. For background bokeh, the CV Nokton is the easy winner - noticeable in other RFF images. For general sharpness, I'm most impressed by the CV 50/2.5. The Elmar 50/2.8 classic is a bit muddy wide open, but the bokeh is very nice. The CV Heliars did nothing for me. The LTM Canons were pretty feeble, with 50/1.4 making the best showing.
In summary, I rate the CV 50/2.5 the winner for getting the job done, and the Summilux for sexiness. :)
Great work. It is interesting to see how well the CV 50f2,5 was doing. It was a lens that got a bad rap early on - obviously the wrong conclusion. I have always liked mine ( all three of them!)..
The Heliar's are not bad, the f2 is a bit soft (not unsharp - just "mellow") at f2, but by f4 it is pretty close to the Heliar f3.5 at f4.
Nice to see how well the J8 did. Goes to prove that it is not the price that dictates quality of image.
Thank you, Tom. My litle projects differ from most lens tests since I do the comparisons more like a "survey". The J-8 used was produced in 1956 (not 1953 as stated by me), and I suspected form the start that it is a good one.
The Heliars are both nice lenses, but I give the 50 3.5 the edge. I have several 50/2 lenses, so I will not miss having a Helair 50 2.0.
For me this was a personal test to see whether I made a mistake by buying mainly vintage 50mm lenses and ignoring modern lenses.
Recently got back from vacation (M4, Elmar 50/2.8 classic), and just finished my perusal of the test results. While a Zeiss fan, I thought the Tessar and Opton did quite poorly. My submitted lens (Summilux v2) looks great: amazing sharpness and contrast @ f/2, and remarkably consistent rendition through the aperture range. For background bokeh, the CV Nokton is the easy winner - noticeable in other RFF images. For general sharpness, I'm most impressed by the CV 50/2.5. The Elmar 50/2.8 classic is a bit muddy wide open, but the bokeh is very nice. The CV Heliars did nothing for me. The LTM Canons were pretty feeble, with 50/1.4 making the best showing.
In summary, I rate the CV 50/2.5 the winner for getting the job done, and the Summilux for sexiness. :)
Well Rico, you cannot be the only person owning a "sexy" lens here! :bang:
I used color film in all images, and maybe some lenses do much better with B&W film. This is an important factor to consider.
The CV 50/2.5 is modern and realtively slow. The design of a multi-coated 50mm 2.5 lens has a good chance of resulting in a superioir lens based on sharpness.
Lens dimensions and weigths can play an important factor when people choose a lens. Some lenses seemed "too small" for my hands and other seemed to be "too messy" for my usage. I guess, we all have our conditions that must be met by a lens.
I wanted to see how good the CV lenses were when compared with non-CV lenses of different age and price levels. Some CV lenses lack conistent quality or they lack precison craftmanship in the cosmetics. In the end, these CV lenses are good buys regardless of what I have mentioned.
My Opton may require adjustment, but I don't know yet.
kermaier
08-12-2009, 12:31
I have two 50mm Skopars, chrome and black used for different purposes on different cameras. The chrome one is "plenty sharp" at f2.5, noticeably better at f4-5.6, and with a small improvement at f8: contrast is very good. The black version initially appeared to be much less sharp, and possibly a tad less contrasty .......
But I have recently realised that the chrome lens was only used at wider apertures while the black one was only (infrequently) used at smaller apertures, namely f11 & f16, were it appeared to be a somewhat mediocre performer.
Looking at the above results, I am beginning to think that the noticeable softening above f8, suggests that the Skopar may be close to diffraction limited by f11 - and the roll-off is pretty steep, evidently affecting centre sharpness and contrast. Of course, this is not based on a fair, side-by-side comparison, but it may help to explain why some folks rate the lens highly, and others do not. I like it.
Also, folks like Sean Reid have noted that there seems to be more sample variation (i.e., looser manufacturing tolerances) among CV lenses than among Leica lenses. So even in a controlled, side-by-side comparison, your two CV 50/2.5 examples might perform differently from each other at various apertures and focal distances.
BTW, it was my black CV 50/2.5 in Raid's tests. I was planning to sell it to help alleviate my acute to-many-50s syndrome (mild compared to Raid's case ;)) but now I'm suddenly reluctant (I guess my copy is a good one)! :bang:
::Ari
kermaier
08-12-2009, 12:35
For me this was a personal test to see whether I made a mistake by buying mainly vintage 50mm lenses and ignoring modern lenses.
So, what is your conclusion in that regard? :)
::Ari
So, what is your conclusion in that regard? :)
::Ari
One or two excellent modern lenses satisfy my needs for very sharp lenses, and then I turn to my vintage lenses for center sharpness and corner fall-off in portraits. Each vintage lens has a story to tell. Modern lenses can only talk about what's been happening recently. :D
These are small crops from the originals. Thanks, Roland.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/danalenstest.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Linalenstest.jpg
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.