Leica Elmar 135mm f/4 compared with others

[caspert79]

EDIT: I removed the images of my first test because of possible inaccuracies. Please scroll down for my second test.

Today I decided to compare the Leica Elmar 135mm f/4 with other 135mm lenses in my collection. Note that it is a limited comparison, mainly focusing on detail resolution. The list of lenses in this test:

- aus Jena Electric MC 135/3.5 (Sonnar)
- Konica Hexanon 135/3.2
- Preset Takumar 135/3.5 (all black version)
- SMC Takumar 135/3.5
- Kyoei Optical 135/2.8
- Leica Elmar 135/4

Camera used: Sony A7R2

First an overview of the full image:
[removed, see newest test]

First, 100% crops of the fastest lens of the bunch, the Kyoei Optical @ f/2.8:
[removed, see newest test]

Pretty good detail resolution in the center. Softer image of the corner, not too bad though.

Then, the f/3.5 (and f/3.2) lenses compared wide open:
[removed, see newest test]

The Sonnar easily beats the other lenses in center detail resolution. What about the corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail resolution of the Sonnar. Visible CA's though.

Then, lenses compared @ f/4:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail resolution of the Sonnar and the Kyoei (!).
Then the corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best the Sonnar, second the Preset Takumar.

Then. Comparison @ f/5.6:
[removed, see newest test]

Best IMO are Sonnar, Preset Takumar and Kyoei. Differences between the three are small. The Kyoei is a little less contrasty.

Corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best Sonnar, followed by preset Takumar.

Then, f/8:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail of Sonnar, Preset Takumar and Elmar.

Corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best Sonnar, second Preset Takumar.

I'm probably going to do another comparison with these lenses, as I'm not completely sure that the focusing was 100% accurate. I'm probably going to choose a subject that is easier to accurately focus on.

Based on this first test I come to the following conclusions. I will later try to verify whether these conclusions are actually accurate:

1) Best overall: Sonnar 135/3.5
2) Kyoei 135/2.8: very good center resolution
3) Preset Takumar (5 element) seems slightly better than later 4 element version.
4) Elmar perofrmance not too remarkable compared to the other lenses.

[cbass]

Interesting comparison.
Leica's light flux has been defeated. Zeiss Vader reigns supreme.

[stevemark]

Simple question (and the reason I only publish tests at infinity) - how do you insure that you corner subject is exactly on the same level as the center subject (perpendicular to the sensor)?

S

[visualopsins]

for test!

(anybody know of flash shoe mounted laser pointer to assist consistent aim of lenses?)

[caspert79]

[KEO]

FWIW, this doesn't change my opinion of the Elmar at all. It's the best old 135. I base this on shooting hundreds of images with it at all apertures under a multitude of different conditions.

The Sonnars (4 and 3.5) are close for sure, but I prefer the Elmar's bokeh and overall rendering, and a number of other factors including size and ergonomics.

Other favorites of mine include the Rodenstock Yronar and the old slim-bodied CZJ Triotar - that Triotar is never going to win a comparison like this.

[caspert79]

[stevemark]

[Doc Sharptail]

[caspert79]

@Stevemark
Thanks for your suggestions. I've thought as well about a test chart and two identical strings. I think for now I will test center and corners independently. It will make the testing procedure simpler, and it makes sense to me, at least for non-macro lenses.

@Doc
Thanks for your reaction. I've experience with those three lenses as well. I still use the Nikkor 55/3.5 for product photography because it's so sharp, but it's true the later 55/2.8 has less distortion. I believe the Vivitar 135/2.8 CF is actually not a flat field lens; it just looks an awful lot like the Vivitar 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 which are flat focus.

[tb_a]

[caspert79]

I believe you, I've seen infinity images of the Elmar that were very sharp from corner to corner. I think for now we can ignore the results of the first test. Later on I will do a test and take better control of a few factors:

- use a flatter structure in the center of the frame
- use a lamp to brighten the subject so nailing the focus is much easier
- focus the corners independently of the center

[martinsmith99]

I'm not surprised that the winner is the Sonnar. Neither was I surprised at the SMC Tak being only average.

[Doc Sharptail]

[caspert79]

[martinsmith99]

[caspert79]

OK, it took me some effort to find the best test conditions. I tried a wine bottle label first, but it was too difficult to see differences between certain lenses. So finally took a €20 bill. I pointed quite a strong light in the direction of the bill, to make accurate focusing possible. Here are the results. Note: the corners are focused independently of the center, so its no flat focus field test.

Center @ f/2.8:
Crops28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

A bit shocked how good the Kyoei is, especially compared to the not-so-shabby Mamiya. Seems to be a different in contrast.

Corner @ f/2.8:
CropsComparison28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

OK, here is where the Mamiya far superior to the Kyoei.

Then, center @ f/3.5:
Crops35 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar first, the SMC Takumar very close.

Corners @ f/3.5:
Cropscomparison35 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Didn't expect the Hexanon to be that good at this aperture in the corners. Best of the bunch, and at a wider aperture.

Center, at f/4:
Crops4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Very hard to choose a winner here. All lenses do pretty good.

I think the Sonnar wins by a very slight margin. Second: I think a shared position between the Elmar and the SMC Takumar (!), which is a big surprise. Look at the detail in the red parts. The Mamiya shows similar detail, but has a bit less contrast.

Then, corners @ f/4:
Cropscomparison4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Here the Hexanon shows how excellent it is once stopped down a little. Look at the little eyes at the upper rim of the frame. First Hexanon, Sonnar second, Elmar third.

Center @ f/5.6:
Crops56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar wins here by very very slight margin, most lenses are very good at this aperture.

Corner @ f/5.6:
Cropscomparison56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar, then Hexanon, then Elmar & Mamiya. But most lenses very close.

Center @ f/8:
Crops8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

I would say the Sonnar, I couldn't tell which one is number 2.

Corner @ f/8:
Cropscomparison8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Very hard to decide at this setting, I think the Mamiya or Hexanon show most detail.
Some interesting results:
- Very good overall performance of Sonnar.
- Extreme good performance of Hexanon 135/3.2 from f/4 and smaller, especially the corners.
- Center performance of Kyoei 135/2.8 wide open; will be very interesting to use for special purposes.
- More than solid results of the SMC Takumar (especially in the center).
- The Elmar seems to have no weak settings. Very good both in center and corner, but not the very sharpest at all settings.

I think the Hexanon and the Sonnar are the winners in this test. Of course there are more things to consider in a lens, for instance ergonomics, flare resistance, circular bokeh etc...

[Zamo]

Very interesting, thanks for the effort. I love the Sonnar, but I was not expecting such good results with it. I disliked the Hexanon 3.2, even being a Konica fan, but it was maybe my copy, I have only tried one.
About the Sonnar, I once compared 2 copies of the m42 mount and one with Praktica B mount and results were identical (which is probably expected, but just in case).

[caspert79]

[cbass]

What I see is that Zeiss Vader still reigns supreme.
However, these were still at close focus distances and not infinity? Is that correct?

[caspert79]

[KEO]

[caspert79]

Interesting. Is there any way to adapt Contax rf lenses to mirrorless camera's?

[alex ph]

Thank you for the effort to reach the consistency. I was also impressed with the Sonnar in your first set. It looks like a very capable lens in all types of use. I acknowledge that in real life you may see less difference, and then processing may change the rendering quite considerably. In the meantime Sonnar seems to give an especially pleasant balance between sharpness and punch.

[KEO]