NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Airy on April 16, 2018, 21:42:32
-
I found this lens at a shop in Paris (rue de Suffren), already adapted to the F mount, which means: no electric contacts, not even a link to the diaphragm, manual closure of said diaph and stopped down metering after having focussed wide open.
The lens has lots of qualities - good color (very slightly cold), very good IQ wide open, little LoCA, very little bokeh outlining, low distortion, acceptable vignetting, good performance at short range too. Short, the pictures look natural and detailed. I feel the breeze circulating in there, so to say.
Only the coatings show their "age" - the lens flares more than recent ones would. As I use to say, it is a good lens for overcast days and will bring grayish scenes to life.
A few samples from these last few days :
-
a few more (f/2, f/6.7, f/2.8 respectively):
-
two more (f/2 or f/2.8)
-
Looks a fine lens!
-
Yes, really. Beats the Voigtländer 58/1.4, especially bokeh-wise, even though it is certainly not at the level of the 58/1.4 G.
-
All images carry typical Airy-esque atmosphere.
If I remember correctly, you've already had a 50mm Summicron-R. Is this your second sample?
-
If I remember correctly, you've already had a 50mm Summicron-R. Is this your second sample?
No, it is the same one. The late design (there were two optical formulas).
-
Here's one of the reasons I like this lens: blacks remain black even wide open, or at least gray-ish (no purple haze - if so, it means you backfocussed). See the musical score.
-
Good imagery from the lens and the photographer.
-
No, it is the same one. The late design (there were two optical formulas).
Thank you for the explanation. I used 50mm and 90mm Summicron-M lenses during the film days and liked their humble but solid character, which can be surely felt from your images. Obviously, the characters of you and the lens have a good rapport.
-
Not sure about commonalities between the -M and -R versions though. I have no experience with Ms.
-
Yes, really. Beats the Voigtländer 58/1.4, especially bokeh-wise, even though it is certainly not at the level of the 58/1.4 G.
Very pleasing shots with the Summicron. But I do miss the 'bite' of the Voigtländer...
-
time for an A/B test then...
-
Since Nikon has no good 50 mm (in my and Thom Hogans opinion;)) I Leitaxed one of my Summicron R lenses a few years back. The lens shows very good resolution and is generally pleasing, my only "complaint" is a slightly desaturated/weak/dull colour rendition compared to the best of current offerings. Reminds me a bit of the excellent 1,8 50 mm Ais of roughly the same vintage.
-
quite a decent lens from all accounts and really like some of your sample images. It is sometimes like treasure hunting to find an older or modified lens from another purpose that brings a unique character or set of features to an image. Found old Schneider Kreuznach 150mm f5.6 (which Mongo added a T mount for Nikon) to produce wonderful portraits ........ but nothing else.
-
Very pleasing shots with the Summicron. But I do miss the 'bite' of the Voigtländer...
I just tried to make some comparative tests. The Summicron pics are generally darker; this may be due to the unavoidable stopped-down metering (the Leitax mount has no diaph lever), while the Voigtländer is always wide open, with lots of vignetting, during metering.
At f/1.4, and still (to a much lesser extent) f/2.0, the Voigt has some blueish haze; the Summicron provides marginally better blacks at f/2. Otherwise, the Voigt has some focus shift (rearwards on stopping down), the cron has about none. Maybe those are reasons for the Summicron-R giving the impression that the focus "snaps".
Both have LoCA, but the cron has less. The Voigt has some field curvature (corners towards camera), the cron apparently less, anyway I do not care much about corners.
Concerning the "bite", it is hard to tell. Maybe my post-processing is to be blamed.
By the way, the Noct has the same troubles (focus shift...) than the Voigt, only worse. One is however rewarded by better bokeh, among others.
The Zeiss 50/2 seems to be consistently better than the Summicron, especially the bokeh - well, it is 6 blades against 9 blades, and the Zeiss shows even less bokeh outlining.
-
I just tried to make some comparative tests. The Summicron pics are generally darker; this may be due to the unavoidable stopped-down metering (the Leitax mount has no diaph lever), while the Voigtländer is always wide open, with lots of vignetting, during metering.
At f/1.4, and still (to a much lesser extent) f/2.0, the Voigt has some blueish haze; the Summicron provides marginally better blacks at f/2. Otherwise, the Voigt has some focus shift (rearwards on stopping down), the cron has about none. Maybe those are reasons for the Summicron-R giving the impression that the focus "snaps".
Both have LoCA, but the cron has less. The Voigt has some field curvature (corners towards camera), the cron apparently less, anyway I do not care much about corners.
Concerning the "bite", it is hard to tell. Maybe my post-processing is to be blamed.
By the way, the Noct has the same troubles (focus shift...) than the Voigt, only worse. One is however rewarded by better bokeh, among others.
The Zeiss 50/2 seems to be consistently better than the Summicron, especially the bokeh - well, it is 6 blades against 9 blades, and the Zeiss shows even less bokeh outlining.
Thanks for the comparision Airy !
Pretty close what I understand. It is always possible post processing can be handled a bit differently. Is there an automatic profile for the Voigt that can play a role? (I noticed those automatic lens-profiles do sometimes not the best for your personal post processing)
-
Indeed, pretty close. As a matter of fact, the FL is the biggest differentiating factor; at any given distance from the subject, the Voigt will separate subject from background more efficiently. I also suspect that the Voigt has the better coatings, and is therefore more of an all-weather lens. Close focus ability is also a plus.
Again, the slightest misfocus at wide apertures will change the perceived "hierarchy" between lenses. So better practice MF often, this will bring more satisfaction than buying the "ultimate lens" and ending up in disappointment.