Nokton versus Summarit

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

I just completed a comparison between the Voigtlander Nokton 1,5/50 and 
the Leitz Summarit 1.5/50. Overall the Nokton exhibits a bit more 
contrast and has the ability to resolve slightly finer structures. At 
full aperture both lenses have low contrast, which does not improve that 
much when stopping down. Both reach their optimum at 5.6. The Summarit at 
full aperture has a bit higher center sharpness, but is much worse in the 
corners. The Nokton has a more even field. It is the suppression of halo 
around strong light sources where the Nokton is the better lens. It is 
significantly so. However in daylight situations the internal reflections 
of the Summarit are better controlled. As can be seen when photographing 
trees in backlight. The deep shadow areas of the Summarit are black, 
where the Nokton is a little greyish. Overall however the Nokton is the 
better lens and , surprisingly, has the same characteristics that makes 
for the famous Leica glow. When one takes pictures with apertures from 
2,8 to 5,6 both lenses are almost equal in performance and character. The 
Nokton has a little more bite. 
Very fine detail is not resolved and the contrast stays on the low side. 
The pictures have a very nice smooth representation of the objects and 
its various textures. There lack the brittleness and high contrast of 
modern Leica lenses which brings out every detail with great clarity. The 
reason why some people prefer the older type of image quality could be 
the visual information overload which one gets with the newest lenses. 
But this is my personal opinion and I need to reflect on this more. 
Erwin Puts