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

[bressong]

when I search on the Internet by bing.com
There is no article have been talking about the performance comparison between leica summicron 50/2and Nikon nikkor 50/2. The fourth and fifth gen of summicron 50/2 is similar 6glass in 4group double guauss optical as nikkor 50/2.
And they all developed in same era.
I am very curious. How much image performance difference they have when you see the price gap.

Does anyone can comment?

Thanks

[pluton]

In the film era to which these lenses are native, I'd rather have the imagery from the Summicron on my film, particularly color reversal.  However, the Nikon lenses focused closer and cost 1/4 as much.  In the digital era, the Leica lenses might not be able to be fairly compared, due to the vagaries of steep ray angles vs. digital sensor sensitivity to same. SLR-intended lenses tend to fare better on digital sensors.
EDIT: I realize you didn't specify whether Leica M or Leica R. I assumed M.

[Erik Lund]

There are several versions of both lenses so many ways to approach this topic.
I have never used an Nikkor 50mm f/2 - I have used a lot of different Nikkor 50-55 and 58mm f/1.2 f/1.4 f/1.8 visions on Nikon D3X and D850
I have owned several Leica M 50mm f/2 used on Leica M9
The latest non ASPH Leica M is quite a bit sharper especially the corners wide open, than the Nikkors but it suffers from being not so happy to shoot into the light, issues with risk of loss of contrast.

[bressong]

In the film era to which these lenses are native, I'd rather have the imagery from the Summicron on my film, particularly color reversal.  However, the Nikon lenses focused closer and cost 1/4 as much.  In the digital era, the Leica lenses might not be able to be fairly compared, due to the vagaries of steep ray angles vs. digital sensor sensitivity to same. SLR-intended lenses tend to fare better on digital sensors.
EDIT: I realize you didn't specify whether Leica M or Leica R. I assumed M.

yes, I am considering the M summicron

[bressong]

There are several versions of both lenses so many ways to approach this topic.
I have never used an Nikkor 50mm f/2 - I have used a lot of different Nikkor 50-55 and 58mm f/1.2 f/1.4 f/1.8 visions on Nikon D3X and D850
I have owned several Leica M 50mm f/2 used on Leica M9
The latest non ASPH Leica M is quite a bit sharper especially the corners wide open, than the Nikkors but it suffers from being not so happy to shoot into the light, issues with risk of loss of contrast.

is there a side by side real photo comparison? e.g on Sony mirroless camera

Leica M summicron 50/2 NON -AA

vs

Nikkor manual 50/2 or 50/1.8 longnose

[Erik Lund]

I will only consider the Leica M lens if I was shooting it on a Leica M camera, that is where the lens shines; Small compact, well corrected and sharp. Almost APO quality.


The latest version does not have any special Leica look, very neutral. Especially due to the sharp corners.


If on a Nikon Z camera you have the huge converter and the Nikkor Z 50mm F/1.8 is sharper and even more well corrected. The opposite of Leica look.


On DSLR the old Nikkor 50mm f/2 is and 50mm f 1/8 are probably a sharp center and nice well rounded experience. Again you don't have to use an adapter.

[MEPER]

I have been out an taken a couple of images with a Nikkor 50/2 (Kogaku type) and Leica M 50/2 (DR type).
I can show later the two images I took at f/2. It was the meaning to take a lot more images but that did not happen yet.
Camera is F50 so only DX-format!

[MEPER]

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?).

[MEPER]

Here 100% crops to compare sharpness. Think both lenses does quite well at f/2 when we consider their age (Nikon first then Leica)?
I guess 2nd hand prices then the Leica is at least 10 times more expensive than the Nikkor?

[BruceSD]

I have owned both of these lenses in the past (although the summicron was the Leica "R" version).

While I have never done a side by side comparison of images taken of the same subject with each lens, I definitely preferred the rich and vibrant colors produced by the Leica lens much better than the colors
I got from the Nikkor lens.

[Akira]

I have used DR version and the newer version with the same optics as the current one only during the film days (Kodachrome 25).

The DR was very sharp, but I liked the overall rendition (the balance between the focused point and bokeh) of the newer one.

The biggest problem for me was that any Leica lenses, made in the pre-war period though at least the early 90s are too prone to fog.  Actually, I had never seen a single sample with the clean optics.  Even some brand new lenses are already fogged.

I think their coatings are not designed to withstand the humid climate.

I haven't had any problems with the lenses of other brands, so long as they are used and stored properly.

[Erik Lund]

I have been out an taken a couple of images with a Nikkor 50/2 (Kogaku type) and Leica M 50/2 (DR type).
I can show later the two images I took at f/2. It was the meaning to take a lot more images but that did not happen yet.
Camera is F50 so only DX-format!

Thank you.


And yes at DX format the difference is almost non existent, since the greater sharpness of the leica at the edges is cut away,,, also this Leica is a much older version that the current Leica M 50mm f/2

[MEPER]

Yes, the DX-format is nice for many vintage lenses.

As I remember the Nikkor 50/2 it has some field curvature so if set at infinity then the corners will show better sharpness at a closer distance than infinity.

The Nikkor 50/2 has very good resolution at 5.6. In the film days I tried out a film called Gigabitfilm. I have attached an example where there are two 100% crops (4000 DPI scan with CS-9000).
I am quite sure if I had a 8000 DPI scanner that more information could be "pulled out". The 100% crop of the man is 0.3 x 0.5 mm area of the film. He is about center in the 24 x 36 mm frame.
Lens used here were a H-C version of 50/2. I would expect the Kogaku to have same resolution at 5.6.
I was told that if I could find a perfect version 400 lp/mm was possible.

[BruceSD]

.
I often do test shots with new lenses in my kitchen using an apple for a subject.

I have never cared for the rendering of the 50/2 Nikkor "by it self".   HOWEVER, I do like it's improved sharpness and bokeh/DOF when attached to a Metabones Speed Booster (below photo using 50/2 on a .64X MBSB on micro four thirds camera - wide open aperture).  To my eye, the 50/2 seems to have a greater 3D pop when used on a MBSB.   

[bressong]

Yes, the DX-format is nice for many vintage lenses.

As I remember the Nikkor 50/2 it has some field curvature so if set at infinity then the corners will show better sharpness at a closer distance than infinity.

The Nikkor 50/2 has very good resolution at 5.6. In the film days I tried out a film called Gigabitfilm. I have attached an example where there are two 100% crops (4000 DPI scan with CS-9000).
I am quite sure if I had a 8000 DPI scanner that more information could be "pulled out". The 100% crop of the man is 0.3 x 0.5 mm area of the film. He is about center in the 24 x 36 mm frame.
Lens used here were a H-C version of 50/2. I would expect the Kogaku to have same resolution at 5.6.
I was told that if I could find a perfect version 400 lp/mm was possible.

amazing, that the nikkor 50/2 can achieve such resolution