View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject: Helios-103 VS Jupiter-8M VS VS old collapsible Summicron |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Some testcharts I just made, photgraphed directly from my monitor (which caused a bit colored flickering in some shots so I did choose B/W conversion), with a steady tripod, distance 1m
NEX-5N, fine jpeg, simple B/W conversionn, croping, nothing else.
All except distortion tests are 100% crops
Helios ist from 1985, Jupiter-8M from 1973, Summicron is earliest model, collapsible with M-Mount from 1956
Order is always Summicron VS Jupiter-8M VS Helios-103
Center F5.6
Ranking: Summicron ~ Helios > Jupiter
Center Wide Open
Ranking: Summicron ~ Helios >> Jupiter
Extreme Corner F5.6
Ranking: Summicron > Helios >> Jupiter
Comment: Vignetting and lower contrast in the extreme corner drags down the Helios-103, but Helios-103 still offers many details -- with a very little PP the Helios would look much better
Extreme Corner Wide Open
Ranking: Summicron > Jupiter > Helios
Comment: All are bad but suprisingly the Helios-103 is even worse than the Jupiter here!
Distortion
Ranking: Summicron = Helios >> Jupiter
Distortion of all is minor for normal use. Only for larger prints of architecture the Jupiter-8 gets problemematic, especially on film.
Conclusion: The 1953-1956 collapsible Summicron wins, but my Helios-103 53/2 copy is nearly as good and the Jupiter-8M is the clear looser. Also in practice the Summicron has way better haptics. But usually you have to pay 20€ for an Helios-103 instead of 400€-500€ for an collpabsible Summicron. If it would be available in Leica M/M39 mount the Helios-103 would be many times more expensive
PS: Summicron has also better colors. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:03 pm; edited 15 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Thanks......I've always been interested in lens comparisons and with the nights drawing in, it's a good time to be on the computer more. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
Very nice comparison...
The difference in quality between the Summicron and the Helios is quite small, but the price of the German is ~25 fold than of the Soviet! _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonyrokkor
Joined: 24 Sep 2012 Posts: 222 Location: Perù, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sonyrokkor wrote:
Very nice comparison.
But, only a little detail, the summ collapsible isn't the same than the rigid or M summicron 2/50. This is the idea that domine into the leica's collectors. And is easy to confirm, among others items: look at the IR marks. Different places = different lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Misha_M wrote: |
Very nice comparison...
The difference in quality between the Summicron and the Helios is quite small, but the price of the German is ~25 fold than of the Soviet! |
Thx!
The problem about the price comparision is, is that the Helios-103 is only available in the "dead" Kiev RF mount, which is also very hard to use on digital cameras (adapters are only available for NEX and MFT and costs 150-200€).
With the same mount, the same good build quality, the same good haptics and with a reliable RF-coupling as thos Summicron has it would be highly regarded and it would cost easily around 300€ _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Comparing your Summicron screens with the Helios ones provides a very good example of what micro-contrast is and does to people
who is not familiar with the concept. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Misha_M wrote: |
Very nice comparison...
The difference in quality between the Summicron and the Helios is quite small, but the price of the German is ~25 fold than of the Soviet! |
Thx!
The problem about the price comparision is, is that the Helios-103 is only available in the "dead" Kiev RF mount, which is also very hard to use on digital cameras (adapters are only available for NEX and MFT and costs 150-200€).
With the same mount, the same good build quality, the same good haptics and with a reliable RF-coupling as thos Summicron has it would be highly regarded and it would cost easily around 300€ |
I don't think I understand... both lenses are RF lenses... you can't mount them on anything with a mirror, anyway.
What are the differences between the Kiev RF mount and the Leica RF mount? _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Misha_M wrote: |
I don't think I understand... both lenses are RF lenses... you can't mount them on anything with a mirror, anyway.
What are the differences between the Kiev RF mount and the Leica RF mount? |
Most important differences between the mounts which are making a difference in price are
-Leica M system is still in production (Voigtländer Bessa RXX, Zeiss Ikon, Leica M-E/M7/MP/M9,...) and is somewhat better (more and better bodies and more and better lenses), which makes them much more favourite to most photographers
-Contax RF/Kiev RF don't have a helicoid! Makes them much harder to adapt them (adapter do cost 150-200€ vs 10-15€ for an Leica M adapter) to digital cameras and it does influence haptics (you need two hands to change aperture etc., mounted lenses have some play/are wobbly even with most expensive Contax RF adapters and also on native bodies in my experience) _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Misha_M wrote: |
I don't think I understand... both lenses are RF lenses... you can't mount them on anything with a mirror, anyway.
What are the differences between the Kiev RF mount and the Leica RF mount? |
Most important differences between the mounts which are making a difference in price are
-Leica M system is still in production (Voigtländer Bessa RXX, Zeiss Ikon, Leica M-E/M7/MP/M9,...) and is somewhat better (more and better bodies and more and better lenses), which makes them much more favourite to most photographers
-Contax RF/Kiev RF don't have a helicoid! Makes them much harder to adapt them (adapter do cost 150-200€ vs 10-15€ for an Leica M adapter) to digital cameras and it does influence haptics (you need two hands to change aperture etc., mounted lenses have some play/are wobbly) |
OK, thanks for explaining! _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|