Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Contax Planar 1.4/50 vs. Summicron-R 2/50 close range focus
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:21 pm    Post subject: Contax Planar 1.4/50 vs. Summicron-R 2/50 close range focus Reply with quote
Here's a comparison between Carl Zeiss' Contax Planar 1.4/50 vs. Leica Summicron-R 2/50 in the close focusing range.
Shots were taken at f/2, f/4 and f/8
Colour temp was set at 5500 K for all pictures, so the differences in colour that you see all depend on the lenses.
Exposures slightly change because of same problem of yesterday (lots of passing clouds and changing lights)
Shots taken on tripod.

f/2 samples:

Planar:


Summicron:


f/4 samples:

Planar:


Summicron:


f/8 samples:

Planar:


Summicron:


Sure this is only close range focusing, at infinite it may be different, but seeing these side to side I say I clearly prefer my Planar. I may try the comparison again at infinite, where I think the Summicron will be better, but if things stay that way I may even decide to sell my Summicron.

If your browser resizes the picture to your screen (Firefox does) click on the image to get the real size.
_


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What puzzles me is the difference in DoF in the f8-shots.

It seems that either lens is great, but actually, I think I would prefer the Leica lens for digital shots and the Planar for film shots.
The "cooler" impression of the Leica is IMHO a better basis for digital post-production, there's a higher flexibility. Whereas the Planar gives you already those results on film, I would look for.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
What puzzles me is the difference in DoF in the f8-shots

me2
Quote:
a better basis for digital post-production

I tried to "fix" canon & sigma color in pp but it's difficult and easily look artificial
Quote:
I think I would prefer the Leica lens for digital shots and the Planar for film shots

I would like also both of them Laughing
I tried planar 1.4 in march, get shocked Shocked & buy a full bag of contax
With Leica price it would be more painful so I prefer to stay away for now Confused


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
About the colours, don't judge on these samples - I set the temperature of 5500 K arbitrarily - it turned out to bee too much for the actual daylight, very warm - so what happened is that the cooler tones of the Leica lens have corrected my mistake, while the Contax lens, normally of perfect balance, here seems too warm.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Quote:
What puzzles me is the difference in DoF in the f8-shots

me2


Me 3, although I am fairly sure I didn't make mistakes.
Anyway, I think I will remake the test on a better day, and with less of a hurry.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's like choosing between best and bester. I think the OOF rendition of the Contax (to my absolute amazement) is the better of the two. Colour is typically a) subjective and b) treatable and both lenses here give the impression of faithful rendering (ie I could accept either as being what was photographed).

patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There also seems to be a very large difference between the lenses in exposure, by far exceeding any difference I observed between the Elmarit and the Cooke. This makes any judging difficult.

Veijo

PS. see e.g. at f/4, Planar above, Summicron below:



There is at least a one stop difference. On the basis of these crops, I wouldn't even contemplate saying something about a hue difference - or anything at all.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:

There is at least a one stop difference. On the basis of these crops, I wouldn't even contemplate saying something about a hue difference - or anything at all.Veijo


Yes, I need to remake the test in a day with a more constant lighting.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

It seems that either lens is great, but actually, I think I would prefer the Leica lens for digital shots and the Planar for film shots.
The "cooler" impression of the Leica is IMHO a better basis for digital post-production, there's a higher flexibility. Whereas the Planar gives you already those results on film, I would look for.


With the exception of Summicron-R 50, all my Leicas give a more detailed rendition than my Contax lenses.
I, however, I am not much into post-processing with computer. I think that there are 2-3 things that are very useful in RAW processing, that is:

- tune white balance

- use extra dynamic range to fill shadows and/or lower highlights (as opposed to raising-lowering curves in Photoshop from a TIF, which is always noisy)

- apply necessary sharpening.

I stop there basically. I think that any other operation, such as saturating colours, or changing curves, etc. degrades the quality of the image.
I am much in favour of staying faithful to what comes out of the camera.

With these premises, I find myself liking better Contax lenses, and Russian lenses as well, because they give me that "film feel" also in digital images.
While on the contrary, the surgical sharpness of Leica lenses and of some Nikon, Tamron and Takumar lenses feels "too much" for digital, which is already a "cold" medium.

So to recap I think I am of the opposite feeling compared to yours Razz I prefer Contax and Russian on digital because they give me the "filminess", while on film, I think Leicas and some of the sharpest Japanese can make up, with their sharpness and analytical rendition, for the less detailed medium. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The pictures are now gone.

Did the planar do better at close focusing distance?

It seems that Summicron-R does not perform its best at close distance? The planar is much better there. Is that correct?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Google saved one image


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It did and by this point that image is confusing as it is one from f/4. By that point you are a 2 stops in and that can clean up close focus performance significantly from wider apertures. Then there was discussion that DOF is not the same which is confusing if that is due to the optics or due to an error and the aperture not being the same.

All I want is confirmation that as close focus distances. Let's say near MFD or at 1M or less the Summicron-R indeed does perform poorly compared the Planar.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1