Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/10/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thoughtful and interesting post. Reads like a primer on lens connoisseurship. Where does the Canon 50/1.4 fit in the scheme of things? rgds Peter. SF, CA --- feli <feli2@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yesterday was a slow Monday. I spent the morning > waiting for a > package and got kind of bored around 10:00, so I > killed some time, by > taking all of my 50's and running a quick test. > > I shot the following lenses at f5.6 on APX100 and > developed in > Rodinal 1:25. > > I want to repeat this test with finer grain film, > because the more > modern lenses on this list are exceeding what APX > 100 can deliver > (not to knock APX100, I love it!) > > > 1. Elmar 3.5/50 (clean) > 2. Summar (CLA) > 3 .Summitar (CLA) > 4. Summicron Collapsible (CLA) > 5 .Summicron DR (CLA) > 6. Summilux (pre-asph, very recent) > 7. Summicron v4 (current, 1 year old) > > Here is the setup I shot for the test. My two > parakeets, Larry and > Pip, became unwilling participants in this > experiment, as a suitable > girl could not be found for the shoot until lunch > time, by which it > was too late. > > http://tinyurl.com/dbtx5 > > I will post crops etc. in the next few days, as I > have more time. > > > As expected the Summar turned in the worst > performance, but gets a > special mention for it's beautiful and romantic > depiction of the scene. The bokeh of this lens is in > a league of it's > own, but it flares like a SOB. This lens will > resolve a surprising > level of detail in scenes that do not contain a > light source. > > The Elmar 3.5/50 performed better across the frame. > Not bad, when you > consider that it is among the first lenses to be > designed for the 135 > format. > > The Summitar was substantially better than either. > Center performance > is surprisingly good and the corners go soft. > > The Cron collapsible shows a big leap over all of > the previous > designs. Performance across the frame is better and > more even, but > the corners are still a tad soft. Beautiful > signature. It's no > surprise HCB loved this lens. By f8 this lens is > very sharp. > > The next three are an interesting mix and the > difference between them > isn't like night and day, although all three have > their own distinct > fingerprint. > > I'm not going to go into too many details regarding > corner > performance, because the film was slightly curled > and I couldn't get > the grain in all scans to be perfectly sharp, > towards the edges. > Nikon REALLY needs to make a glass neg holder. > > The Summicron DR is sharp. Very sharp. The DR glows > (flares) at the > finest level of detail that it captures, killing > some of the > contrast. So, what you get is a very sharp image, > that has this > smooth, pearly sheen to it. This is the DR/rigid > look that people > talk about. It's almost like subsurface scattering, > as seen in semi > translucent materials, or like what you see in a > fiber silver print, > where the light is bouncing around below the gelatin > surface. You > also get beautiful little glows around specular > kicks. Performance > across the frame seems to be even, with the far > corners going a > little soft. > > The Lux is very similar to the DR in resolution, but > has much better > flare resistance, which gives it a little more > contrast. It also > appears that the improved flare resistance gives the > Lux images much > better separation of the greyscale, because > gradations aren't > disrupted or contaminated by flare. In practice this > is a pretty big > deal, especially when shooting at night, as I can > attest to from > using with this lens for about a year. Yes, there > are sharper lenses, > but when you are shooting into the light, in high > contrast situations > or if there is a strong light-source in the frame, > the Lux will quite > often win, because it is very flare resistant and > unlike the other > two lenses can preserve whatever details it is > capturing. The > Noctilux acts the same way, only even better in this > regard. I think > the corners are about the same as with the DR. > > The current Cron v4 is interesting, in that it > generates the images > with the highest contrast, but doesn't seem to be as > flare resistant > as the Lux. Now, that may not entirely make sense, > but looking at the > scans, that's what I am seeing. Coming from the > window there is > visible flare, but it falls off rapidly and the > image becomes very > high in contrast. This high contrast is very evident > at the finest > level of details, and it is this trait that gives > images made with > the current Cron that bite and crispness. > Performance across then > frame is very even, and even the corners are strong. > This is a very, > very, very sharp lens. If you are going to make very > big > enlargements, this is the ticket. The sharpest 50 I > know of. It's a > little susceptible to flare, but I really don't > think that's a bad > thing, because it prevents the images from becoming > 'clinical'. > > On running the risk of sounding like Erwin, here is > a summary of the > last three lenses. > > The DR draws the most atmospheric images of the > three, like a Rembrant. > The Lux is like a Vermeer. Very accurate in it's > rendering of light. > The Cron v4 draws like an expressionist. Modern, but > rooted in it's > classic heritage. > > > > > Feli > > > ________________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 > > www.elanphotos.com > > > NO ARCHIVE > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for > more information > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com