for raid (and others): bokeh comparison test for some 50mm lens

sebastel · 09-24-2006

hi,

as previously announced in frank's "bought another 50mm" thread, i conducted a little test in order to compare the bokeh of the different 50 mm (leica mount) lens i currently own.

here come the results.

the test was carried out using an epson R-D1 with the 's' software update.

i shot wide open, and in most cases also with F/4 or F/4.5 in order to make visible differences related to the number of aperture blades (summar and coated summitar have 6 blades, the uncoated summitar has 10 blades).

the main subject (wine glass) is at a distance of 1,1 m from the camera.
a CD was put into the background in order to deliver some highlights, but for some lens it was too far away (about 3 m). :-)

the files were resized in GIMP to 1200x798 pixel with cubical interpolation, and stored as JPEG with quality parameter set to 80 (maybe too much compression already). no further messing with the files!

first, to give you an overview of the situation (and to check the bokeh of my current main lens) two pictures made with the 28mm ultron:

ultron (28) F/2,0
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0425.jpg

ultron (28) F(4,0)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0426.jpg

then, the "old" LTM lens.
please note: the elmar is uncoated and the front surface has some cleaning marks, so it is quite soft.

summar coated F/2,0
(6 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0415.jpg

summar coated F/4,5
(6 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0414.jpg

summitar coated F/2,0
(6 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0417.jpg

summitar coated F/4,5
(6 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0416.jpg

summitar uncoated F/2,0
(10 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0409.jpg

summitar uncoated F/4,5
(10 blades aperture)
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0410.jpg

industar F/3,5
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0412.jpg

elmar F/3,5
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0413.jpg

finally, the M mount lenses.
here, please note, that the collapsible elmar (not the elmar-M!!!) has some fungus.

elmar-M F/2,8
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0408.jpg

elmar-M F/4,5
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0411.jpg

elmar collapsible F/2,8
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0418.jpg

elmar collapsible F/4,5
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0419.jpg

summicron F/2,0
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0421.jpg

summicron F/4,0
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0420.jpg

noctilux F/1,0
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0424.jpg

noctilux F/2,0
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0423.jpg

noctilux F/4,5
http://www.sebastel.de/bokeh/s_eps0422.jpg

happy comparing!

cheers,
sebastel

(edited for typos)

raid · 09-24-2006

Thanks, Sebastian. This is very useful information on quite a few lenses.
My first impression is that they all did well.
The Noctilux also sticks out as very sharp.
I need to dwell on these photos to see if I can discover any differences.

Regards,

Raid

sebastel · 09-24-2006

u r welcome.

cheers
sebastian

martin-f5 · 09-24-2006

High,
that's a nice test,
but somehow the elmar collapsible made some strange photos,
I can't believe the lense is so bad.
You should place them all a at one page.

Thanks

raid · 09-24-2006

The four color objects in the right upper corner of each photo [at the window] are showing different Bokeh effects for some lenses. In the case of the Ultron 28mm lens, these four colors are well defined and not blowing out, but this is a wide angle lens, and its Bokeh seems to differ from the 50mm lenses. For some lenses [all looked at wide open] these colors blow out differently.

Raid

Crasis · 09-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid amin

Thanks, Sebastian. This is very useful information on quite a few lenses.
My first impression is that they all did well.
The Noctilux also sticks out as very sharp.
I need to dwell on these photos to see if I can discover any differences.

Regards,

Raid

Although I found a surprising difference in resolution of fine detail between the nocti at f/2 and even the summitar at f/2. The summitar won, and that's not even comparing to the summicron!

Then again.. the nocti.. that f/1. Makes you want to shoot 25 iso in daylight all day long. Who needs depth of field?

raid · 09-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crasis

Although I found a surprising difference in resolution of fine detail between the nocti at f/2 and even the summitar at f/2. The summitar won, and that's not even comparing to the summicron!

Then again.. the nocti.. that f/1. Makes you want to shoot 25 iso in daylight all day long. Who needs depth of field?

Do you mean the coated Summitar (6 blades) or the uncoated Summitar
(10 blades)?

raid · 09-24-2006

Note the different levels of sharpness/contrast when looking at the writing on top of the chocolate bar. For example, with the Summitar or Summar the letters are well defined but this is not the case with the Noctilux.

Raid

sebastel · 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin-f5

High,
that's a nice test,
but somehow the elmar collapsible made some strange photos,
I can't believe the lense is so bad.
You should place them all a at one page.

Thanks

hi martin,

as i explicitly mentioned, the collapsible elmar has fungus.
that means, this particular lens is damaged. out of order. broken. kaputt. it can impossibly render clearly.

similarly the little elmar, which has been cleaned too thoroughly ...

you should not expect an intact example of these lenses to behave that way.

i still included those lens into the comparison simply because they were present at the time, and i was curious.

and, as for the postwork of the test pictures - sorry for not serving better your requirements, but i had a VERY busy day yesterday, and i was quite happy i could get that far in the first place.
by the way, i won't stop you to setup that page.
:-D

regards
s.

sebastel · 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid amin

The four color objects in the right upper corner of each photo [at the window] ...

... are reflections of light on the surface of a CD ...

maybe next time i use a lit candle instead?

cheers,
sebastian

09-25-2006

Post deleted by posters request

Ronald M · 09-25-2006

I have done this with film-Summar-coated 10 blade Summitar-DR=version 3- 3.5 coated elmar-2.8 elmar. There was no significant difference in any.

Next time put a sign in the frame so we can see each description. I have 16 wiindows open and it is confusing.

The colored object in the right rear takes on some strange shapes as the lenses are all stopped down. What shape is this supposed to be or is some digital artifact coming into play?

aton · 09-25-2006

Thank you very much Sebastel for these pictures. It's very well maked.
I enjoy it!
I'm impressed by the top quality of the Elmar M, also at full aperture, even better than the Cron... the Noctilux at 4 is also beautiful..a little softer than the two others.

zuikologist · 09-25-2006

Thank you for this. I good real world test. I am surprised that the Industar fares so well in this company.

FrankS · 09-25-2006

It is amazing how small the differences are, but then we are looking at a computer screen. Thank you Sebastian!

sebastel · 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald M

Next time put a sign in the frame so we can see each description. I have 16 wiindows open and it is confusing.

again ... i'll stop no one to do so ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald M

The colored object in the right rear takes on some strange shapes as the lenses are all stopped down. What shape is this supposed to be or is some digital artifact coming into play?

again (2)
it is the reflection from a CD surface. CD like in "compact disk". that is the storage medium we old people once liked to use for music.

as for differences - the shapes of the OOF confusion circles varies a lot, especially with the 6 bladed apertures.

unfortunately, the CD reflections are not that nicely showing it as i had hoped for. so, next time i need better prep.

:-)

so, baseline - i'll rerun this, with a better subject, less JPEG compression, and more telling filenames. but that will be earliest in 3 weeks.
everybody happy now ?

cheers
sebastian

raid · 09-25-2006

Thanks Sebastian. Could you include a flare test by shooting against the window?

Raid

grainhound · 09-27-2006

I have both an uncoated 1935 Summar with clean glass & a 1958 collapsible Elmar 2.8 with some pin prick size marks on the rear element. For anyone considering the classic Elmar, my experience contrasts sharply with what you see here. I'm slow to set up comparison shots, slow to develop film, & slow to post. Nevertheless, I'm now interested in trying this out. I may use colour or T400 CN to speed myself up (from glacial to slow; I have scanner problems). The Summar is great fun, very interesting for what it does, & is for me a 50mm that complements other 50s. (I only have these 2 so far; looking for a 1.4 or 1.5...) The Elmar came with my M2; not the lens I'd have ordered if one could do that, but the more I use it, the more I like it. Both are sharper than I'd expected, but the M2 is my 1st Leica, bought in May.

Goodyear · 09-27-2006

And again I dream of the Noctilux... So smooth.

sebastel · 09-27-2006

hi raid,

you can easily see the result of flare in the pics taken with the uncoated summitar (compare to the coated version). it is like a thin layer of fog everywhere.

but, since i'll arrange a different setup anyway, i'll take that into account, too.

and, once again, my collapsible elmar is in a real bad state. still you can see that its base sharpness is quite fine. just the fungus makes it flare like looking through a glass of milk.

:-)

cheers,
sebastian

raid · 09-27-2006

Sebastian,

I had the Summicron with terrible flare problems in a test of 50m lenses. The test showed me that this lens needed internal cleaning. Afterwards, the lens was super sharp again, and without flare.

Raid