What old lenses would you like to see tested?

Over the years, I've had a slew of cameras that did really good work as far as sharpness goes. If I could see tests such as are done by MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY, done on old camera lenses, here are some of my picks: Kodak Ektar 44mm f/3.5, as used on Signet 35; the Cintar lens of the Argus C-3; various lenses used on the Kodak Retina series; the 40mm f/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar, as used on the Rollei 35s. I'd like to see the Rollei TLR 75mm Schneider Xenotar and the Zeiss Planar compared. The Ektar, as used on the Kodak Chevrons & Medalist 620s.

The latter are both f/3.5s, of different focal lengths.

I definitely agree with you on the two Rollei lenses. I have a

Schneider 3.5F, and it would be most gratifying to see some of

the wind taken out of the "Zeiss-snobs" sails. (Not that there's

anything wrong with Zeiss lenses I hasten to add).

The problem with relying on tests done decades ago is that there have

been so many changes in film emulsions that we really have no way to

extrapolate to today's film. And the problem with running tests on

those old lenses today is that it's nearly impossible to be certain

that so many different things have affected these lenses over the

years even if they appear to be "mint"--usage, care, storage,

disassembly/repair--that it is again hard to extrapolate from the

tested sample to other samples. It might be a fun undertaking, but

I'm afraid the data would be unreliable. That's one reason I am a

skeptic when a tester concludes unequivocally that the current Leica

lenses are so much superior to previous generations. While it may be

arguable that sample variation in current production is nil, the same

can't be said for the second-hand market.

I think it would be fun to take the various Leica lenses back to

their beginnings, gather MTF and other performance data for

each, and based on these tests assign a numerical rating value

for each, which could be expressed as a point on an X-Y axis.

Curves could then be generated for each focal length, with the

beginning of each curve representing the start of a particular

focal-length. One could then generate additional curves for all

the various "aberrations," reflecting more accurately the specific

personalities of each lens. Just a thought. And, yes, 75mm 3.5

planars/xenotars and tessars/xenars (for Rolleiflex) the

astounding 50mm 2.8 xenar on my old Retina 1-A, and a most

unusual (and rare) lens: the Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor. I bought a

Trigor for a homemade 11X14, and taped strips of 35mm

Agfapan-25 in center and edges of an 11X14 holder to test, and it

looked almost Leica-like when enlarged as a 35mm! This is

generally unheard-of in the realm of View-Camera lenses. (Why

did I ever sell this lens?) Goerz lenses in general are a pretty

interesting bunch. But I obsess! Time to go!

It cannot be done...films are so much better,that there is no valid

comparison.If one were to test those old lenses against modern

lenses ...maybe.The modern tests that done on "Photodo"are useful but

also not relative.My Pentax 50mmf1.4 has higher marks than my 50mm

Summicron...Yeah right!No other Lenses except some Hasselblad lenses

have that "special roundness"of Leiva lenses.That said my old Rollei,

with 75mm Tessar is very sharp.My Nikon 105mmm is soft!I read it was

one of Nikons sharpest,,well its my softest lens.Perfect for

portraits!I think use is better than test.

I thank all of you for your testing and passing on your findings.It

is a great help.I never find the time.I shoot photos and read from

that...My sharpest non Leica lenses-Rollei 40mmTessar,75mmTessar and

Pentax Super Takumar 50mmf4.oMacro(also Tessar formula)Seems without

computers,pure mathematics in the 1930's set a course!Least

sharp,Nikkor 105mmf2.5,Vivitar Zoom,75~300mm9fun and toy lens!)

Tell that to Erwin (that you can't test older lenses). He has tested

Leica lenses back to the 50/3.5 Anastigmat and Elmax.

<p>

One of the problems about testing is that you have to do fairly

extensive tests to really get a good idea of lens performance. MTF

curves at four different frequencies for at least three or four

apertures to get an idea of wide open, stopped down a few stops, and

diffusion limited performance. Then this whole procedure would have

to be repeated at several different distances to assess performance

at long distances vs close range.

<p>

You would also have to measure distortion levels across the field at

several different F-stops. And you should also independently assess

flare (this is partly built into the MTF measurements, but these are

not done under flare prone situations).

<p>

Finally, there is the measurement of the actual focal length (which

may differ from the stated value), the actual aperture based on light

transmission (which may be different from the stated aperture), and

the degree of light fall-off at different F-stops.

<p>

Unfortunately, Photodo tests, although useful, don't really give a

complete picture of lens performance. And I have no idea what the

"SQF values" published by Popular Photography really mean. I know

what they say these values meaqn, but I wish they would just publish

the MTF values. The complexity of lens test measurement and

interpretation is one of the reasons Leica never used to publish lens

tests, but in the last few years they have changed this policy and

report these tests on some of their newer lenses.

A "New" Summar. I have one that has never been stored without its end

caps on and has never been cleaned. Very difficult to tell the

difference from a summicron in normal photography.

Hello Frank.I would like to see Nikon rangefinder SP,S2 lenses

versus their Leica contemporaries.Regards.

Somewhat OT, but when we're talking about high-end lenses (Leitz,

Nikon, etc.) I think the only reliable test is on my camera. I've

owned lenses that tested well and that did not work well for me, and

vica-versa. Each of us has different needs and priorities, and no

single number (or set of numbers) can reliably summarize an optic's

ability to satisfy our needs.