[Leica] interesting...

[pmcc_2000 at yahoo.com (Peter M. C. Choy)]

Thoughtful and interesting post.  Reads 
like a primer on lens connoisseurship.  
Where does the Canon 50/1.4 fit in the 
scheme of things?  

rgds
Peter.
SF, CA

--- feli <feli2@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Yesterday was a slow Monday. I spent the morning
> waiting for a  
> package and got kind of bored around 10:00, so I
> killed some time, by  
> taking all of my 50's and running a quick test.
> 
> I shot the following lenses at f5.6 on APX100 and
> developed in  
> Rodinal 1:25.
> 
> I want to repeat this test with finer grain film,
> because the more  
> modern lenses on this list are exceeding what APX
> 100 can deliver  
> (not to knock APX100, I love it!)
> 
> 
> 1. Elmar 3.5/50 (clean)
> 2. Summar (CLA)
> 3 .Summitar (CLA)
> 4. Summicron Collapsible (CLA)
> 5 .Summicron DR (CLA)
> 6. Summilux (pre-asph, very recent)
> 7. Summicron v4 (current, 1 year old)
> 
> Here is the setup I shot for the test. My two
> parakeets, Larry and  
> Pip, became unwilling participants in this
> experiment, as a suitable  
> girl could not be found for the shoot until lunch
> time, by which it  
> was too late.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/dbtx5
> 
> I will post crops etc. in the next few days, as I
> have more time.
> 
> 
> As expected the Summar turned in the worst
> performance, but gets a  
> special mention for it's beautiful and romantic
> depiction of the scene. The bokeh of this lens is in
> a league of it's  
> own, but it flares like a SOB. This lens will
> resolve a surprising  
> level of detail in scenes that do not contain a
> light source.
> 
> The Elmar 3.5/50 performed better across the frame.
> Not bad, when you  
> consider that it is among the first lenses to be
> designed for the 135  
> format.
> 
> The Summitar was substantially better than either.
> Center performance  
> is surprisingly good and the corners go soft.
> 
> The Cron collapsible shows a big leap over all of
> the previous  
> designs. Performance across the frame is better and
> more even, but  
> the corners are still a tad soft. Beautiful
> signature. It's no  
> surprise HCB loved this lens. By f8 this lens is
> very sharp.
> 
> The next three are an interesting mix and the
> difference between them  
> isn't like night and day, although all three have
> their own distinct  
> fingerprint.
> 
> I'm not going to go into too many details regarding
> corner  
> performance, because the film was slightly curled
> and I couldn't get  
> the grain in all scans to be perfectly sharp,
> towards the edges.  
> Nikon REALLY needs to make a glass neg holder.
> 
> The Summicron DR is sharp. Very sharp. The DR glows
> (flares) at the  
> finest level of detail that it captures, killing
> some of the  
> contrast. So, what you get is a very sharp image,
> that has this  
> smooth, pearly sheen to it. This is the DR/rigid
> look that people  
> talk about. It's almost like subsurface scattering,
> as seen in semi  
> translucent materials, or like what you see in a
> fiber silver print,  
> where the light is bouncing around below the gelatin
> surface. You  
> also get beautiful little glows around specular
> kicks. Performance  
> across the frame seems to be even, with the far
> corners going a  
> little soft.
> 
> The Lux is very similar to the DR in resolution, but
> has much better  
> flare resistance, which gives it a little more
> contrast. It also  
> appears that the improved flare resistance gives the
> Lux images much  
> better separation of the greyscale, because
> gradations aren't  
> disrupted or contaminated by flare. In practice this
> is a pretty big  
> deal, especially when shooting at night, as I can
> attest to from  
> using with this lens for about a year. Yes, there
> are sharper lenses,  
> but when you are shooting into the light, in high
> contrast situations  
> or if there is a strong light-source in the frame,
> the Lux will quite  
> often win, because it is very flare resistant and
> unlike the other  
> two lenses can preserve whatever details it is
> capturing. The  
> Noctilux acts the same way, only even better in this
> regard. I think  
> the corners are about the same as with the DR.
> 
> The current Cron v4 is interesting, in that it
> generates the images  
> with the highest contrast, but doesn't seem to be as
> flare resistant  
> as the Lux. Now, that may not entirely make sense,
> but looking at the  
> scans, that's what I am seeing. Coming from the
> window there is  
> visible flare, but it falls off rapidly and the
> image becomes very  
> high in contrast. This high contrast is very evident
> at the finest  
> level of details, and it is this trait that gives
> images made with  
> the current Cron that bite and crispness.
> Performance across then  
> frame is very even, and even the corners are strong.
> This is a very,  
> very, very sharp lens. If you are going to make very
> big  
> enlargements, this is the ticket. The sharpest 50 I
> know of. It's a  
> little susceptible to flare, but I really don't
> think that's a bad  
> thing, because it prevents the images from becoming
> 'clinical'.
> 
> On running the risk of sounding like Erwin, here is
> a summary of the  
> last three lenses.
> 
> The DR draws the most atmospheric images of the
> three, like a Rembrant.
> The Lux is like a Vermeer. Very accurate in it's
> rendering of light.
> The Cron v4 draws like an expressionist. Modern, but
> rooted in it's  
> classic heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feli
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________
> feli2@earthlink.net                 2 + 2 = 4       
>         
> www.elanphotos.com
> 
> 
> NO ARCHIVE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for
> more information
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com