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

Summicron-M 35/2 samples (original size)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject: Summicron-M 35/2 samples (original size) Reply with quote

Leica M4 with Summicron-M 35/2 @ f/5.6 1/500s on Velvia 100F
Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED & Vuescan 8, uploaded original size

Original size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3545119776/


Leica M4-2 with Summicron-M 35/2 @ f/5.6 1/500s on Velvia 100F
Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED & Vuescan 8, uploaded original size

Original size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3545110720/


Not for academic comparison, but interesting nevertheless:
Similar composition & exposure with D3 & Nikkor 35/1.4 AI-S


Nikon D3 & Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S @ f/5.6 1/500s ISO 100

Original size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3536148803/


Nikon D3 with Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S @ f/5.6 1/1000s ISO 200

Original size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3536098723/

I will upload to gallery samples later this week.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Tue May 19, 2009 10:23 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I assume you did not process the photos, right?

The Nikon lens seems to me a LOT much better than the Summicron from these pictures.
I would not have doubt on which one to buy if I had to buy one.
Man the Summy looks flat here. What a letdown.


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:24 am    Post subject: Summicron and Nikkor 35mm Reply with quote
Interesting, yes indeed - but really more like comparing grilled beef steak with baked trout! I like both sorts of food and both of the images in this post ... but can we say if either is better than the other?

I suppose to make a meaningful test of those lenses we ought perhaps to shoot half of the same film in a Nikon camera and the other half in a Leica and then look closely at the results. But then we would also need to shoot black and white, colour neg and colour reversal, because lenses perform differently with the various film types. And then again, lenses work differently on ultra fine grain emulsions and high speed ones ... so soon it becomes clear we would need a truly mammoth programme to gain a deep understanding! This could be hard work, perhaps I prefer to drink coffee and eat chocolate cake instead - !


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, I just realized that you compared a rangefinder film camera with a digital reflex camera.
Fool me - then the comparison is pointless.

You should, at least, shoot the same with a Nikon film camera also, using the same film.
Then we would still be comparing a reflex lens with a rangefinder lens, but at least it would have a common medium basis.


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gentlemen, if you read what I wrote:

Esox lucius wrote:


Not for academic comparison, but interesting nevertheless:
Similar composition & exposure with D3 & Nikkor 35/1.4 AI-S


I am not interested in comparing apples with oranges nor comparing film with digital, I am only posting samples original size. I use both systems myself and I find situations where I prefer either before the other.

I'll edit the subject as not to ignite any more analog vs digital, reflex vs rangefinder debates. Should have started with a disclaimer in huge font size anyway...

I just thought someone might be as interested in the film scans original size, as members showed interest in the Nikkor DSLR shots here http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-35mm-f-1-4-ai-s-samples-original-size-f-5-6-t16965.html. They are of the same scene, and the reasons for shooting same scene with both systems is 1) my M-4 does not have a light meter 2) exposure validation with the DSLR I carry is useful especially with slide film latitude 3) I want to make big prints out of these


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:37 am    Post subject: Comparisons Reply with quote
I hope that I have not offended Esox lucius with my earlier comment - such was certainly not my intention. Perhaps the real "not-academic comparison" here is the difference between images from scanned negatives and original digital-camera images?

I regret I have no experience of scanning negatives, but do have experience of both these lenses and know that both are very fine optics which have quite different "fingerprints". At the risk of diverting this thread away from its original topic, are images from scanned negatives at a disadvantage compared to camera generated ones? Perhaps Esox lucius could comment on that?


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Strange, I haven't pixel-peeped the full size versions, but I would choose the Summicron in a heartbeat based on these examples (but also based on the different "look" from the film I guess). In fact, I own this same Summicron, but I have no particular allegiance to Leica.


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for me the Leica is better than the AIS
look how much the AIS eat all details off the wall and look oversharpened and plastic
Leica-AIS


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ poilu: I don't see more detail in the Leica shot, I only see more noise...


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
look how much the AIS eat all details off the wall and look oversharpened and plastic


The RAW is certainly not oversharpened, it's set 4 out of 10. Oversharpened, plastic, noisy... you're all free to see what you see, like or want in them.

scsambrook wrote:
Perhaps the real "not-academic comparison" here is the difference between images from scanned negatives and original digital-camera images?

...are images from scanned negatives at a disadvantage compared to camera generated ones?


Once again, this part of the forum is for lens samples and the pursue of comparison was followed by discussion. I wrote that part of not an academically valid comparison because the method of acquiring source of evaluation is not comparable. If I hadn't uploaded them in full size no-one would have pixel-peeped and compared them, should have known better. I just hate to see samples that are downsized to web resolution, because they give you no real idea of what the lens does on film or digital.

The scanner used here is good but there are better ones. I certainly wouldn't call the Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED the best there is for scanning 35mm film, but it's good enough for me and also it's what I have Razz

Myself, I prefer the shots I took on Velvia, as they required no post-processing to give a vividly colourful image of a nice Sunday afternoon. They turned out very nice in the print I made, and I very much doubt the person I donated the print to today will ever give a damn what equipment was used to make the photo Smile

Last edited by Esox lucius on Wed May 20, 2009 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
for me the Leica is better than the AIS
look how much the AIS eat all details off the wall and look oversharpened and plastic

This isn't fine structure just film grain. You can easily add something similar to the Nikon picture just using Photoshop.
The Nikon picture clearly show more details (i.e. in the window), maybe because of the crop factor too. Maybe of the scanning too?
Question: Which Summicron version was used? How old is this lens? It shows light falloff too (2nd picture). But color looks better (less cold)
After all, the pre-ASPH. 35/2 wasn't the sharpest lens anymore when Leica replaced it with the ASPH.

Good comparison. Bad stuff for Leicisti... Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
taunusreiter wrote:

The Nikon picture clearly show more details (i.e. in the window), maybe because of the crop factor too. Maybe of the scanning too?


Nikon D3 is full-frame DSLR, there is no crop factor benefit involved here. Both photos are taken from exact same square meter, with same field of view and hand-held.

Scanner used was definitely not the best in terms of technical quality, I used my Nikon Coolscan 4000 which is a medium-high quality CCD scanner. I don't own an Imacon , and frankly its 5-digit price isn't appealing for what I need either. Maybe someone who has an Imacon can give me their postal address, I'll be happy to send the slides by mail for scanning.

taunusreiter wrote:
Question: Which Summicron version was used? How old is this lens? It shows light falloff too (2nd picture). But color looks better (less cold) After all, the pre-ASPH. 35/2 wasn't the sharpest lens anymore when Leica replaced it with the ASPH.

Good comparison. Bad stuff for Leicisti... Wink


The Summicron-M 2/35 used here is serial 3355xxx and that dates it at 1985. Someone more Leicaphile than me can perhaps fill in on which generation and version it is. The lens is in mint condition, I can't see any signs of use when I am examining it with a 5x magnifier at front and rear elements.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Wed May 20, 2009 9:14 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both are in the best 35 mm league.

It's very difficult to me to choose one. If you want to have more light equipment, and use the cam more in the handheld mode, perhaps you may choose Leica (I used the M4 with the 35/2 at 1/8-15 without problems 30 years ago, not now of course).

But I don't beleave in "non cientific tests" so much. It sounds me something like paradoxical.

And what a pair of lenses!!

Rino


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

Scanner used was definitely not the best in terms of technical quality, I used my Nikon Coolscan 4000 which is a medium-high quality CCD scanner. I don't own an Imacon , and frankly its 5-digit price isn't appealing for what I need either. Maybe someone who has an Imacon can give me their postal address, I'll be happy to send the slides by mail for scanning.

The Summicron-M 2/35 used here is serial 3355xxx and that dates it at 1985. Someone more Leicaphile than me can perhaps fill in on which generation and version it is. The lens is in mint condition, I can't see any signs of use when I am examining it with a 5x magnifier at front and rear elements.


It was the latest before the ASPH., design 1979, their last classical Gaussian type, also called "king of bokeh", "Leica glow" etc. by some.
Optically speaking, all these "glows" are undercorrected optical aberrations and lens research and development attempts to reduce them.
In don't think the sharpness outcome will be much better if scanned by an Imacon, although would see the film grain better.
These remind me to my own scans of negs taken with my UC-Hexanon 35/2 pleasing signature, which is also a RF Gaussian wideangle, very similar in design and output, but 20 years later. Perhaps the last RF wideangle lens in classical Gaussian design (except the 35/1.8 Nikon-2006 re-issue). I know when I bought it new that there are sharper lenses today.

Thanks for the illuminative comparison of "old-modern" 35mm lenses


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the comparison. This shows:

What none DSLR sensor is capable of
is the beautiful vibrant gradient in the sky,
Almost every film-camera can do that.

Just by comparing those, Leica images look like real skies,
where DSLR skies don't. They look dull and plain.

The fact, this is a comparison of two cameras,
with 30+ years in between them, I must say,
there is a lot to do for the makers eg: producing better sensors.
And even if they achieve a "super-near-result",
they never will be able to compete with film,
because it's simply not film and light. Very Happy

Regards
Hasan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1