Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Helios-103 VS Jupiter-8M VS VS old collapsible Summicron
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Helios-103 VS Jupiter-8M VS VS old collapsible Summicron Reply with quote

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.


Last edited by ForenSeil on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:03 pm; edited 15 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 (Voigtlnder 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)


Last edited by ForenSeil on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 (Voigtlnder 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!