leica summicron 50/2 vs Nikon nikkor 50/2 ?

[bressong]

First image shows the two lenses I compared at f/2.

Then there are two sets of pictures (first the Nikon and then the Leica). First set of images have close focus and second set has far focus.
Images looks quite similar but there are small differences. One difference in second set of images is that Leica has sharper front (maybe caused by field curvature?).

thanks for the comparison test.

for the close-shoot, the image performance is very equal. even the bokeh is very similar.

for the mid-range distance, leica 50/2 seems more sharp. It may also because of the different focus point when you look at the blurred close sight

[MEPER]

For both images at the far distance I tried to focus at the orange "T" bridge pillar. But I was surprised that the Leica was so much sharper at closer distance.
Will see next time if I see same behavior.
 
A Nikkor 50/2 Gigabitfilm example more attached (full frame + 100% crop scanned at 4000 DPI).
The Nikkor 50/2 is a cheap way to get a sharp normal lens which also has a high mechanical quality.
The front lens sits relative deep so good protected even without a filter attached.

[bressong]

For both images at the far distance I tried to focus at the orange "T" bridge pillar. But I was surprised that the Leica was so much sharper at closer distance.
Will see next time if I see same behavior.
 
A Nikkor 50/2 Gigabitfilm example more attached (full frame + 100% crop scanned at 4000 DPI).
The Nikkor 50/2 is a cheap way to get a sharp normal lens which also has a high mechanical quality.
The front lens sits relative deep so good protected even without a filter attached.

I did some side by side test in the past time, I realized it is not a easy job, the difference on the focus point has more impact when comparing same level lens quality.