Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 vs Summicron 50mm f/2

In case anyone is interested, I will be doing a field comparison of

an Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 against a Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 Type

5. After I get my equipment and test subjects together, I will post

the results in my personal portfolio on photo.net for all to see. In

the meantime, I have a couple of B&W's taken with a Zuiko 28mm

f/2.8, on photo.net. I love my Zuiko lenses! I'm new to Leica

photography. Hopefully I'll learn to love my summicron 50mm f/2

fifth version as much.

Make sure to do some at both close distances and infinity at the widest f stop. That's where I'm betting you'll notice the biggest difference in your test. I did a similar test comparing to my Nikkor 50mm to the 50 Summicron, and by the time the lenses are stopped down a few stops, the differences aren't that noticeable (at least as far as resolution and contrast.)

I mentioned this a few times previously:

 

I decided to buy another Leica (after 40 years) beacuse of the body, not the lenses.

 

This is a legitimate issue for discussion.

 

The Leica body, besides being precisely built (not just the new units either!), it is also one of the quietest cameras ever made and it's ability to be hidden in one's hands can not be surpassed.

 

I have also used Zuiko lenses, and, I agree...one fine set of optics throughout its range. They are among the top performers.

 

Last year I was given a "non-working" Minolta SRT101 with a basic 50mm 1.7 and, after getting it to work (a no-brainer), I have taken some photos whose sharpness, resolution, and contrast can not be surpassed by many other lenses. I use it now mainly for extreme color close-ups with a Vivitar 2X Macro Converter...Crisp Images!

 

My interest in the Leica is mainly for the body...I use Leitz, Russian, and Canon lenses on my M2 with great success.

 

I think you do have to admit that Leica has made a few "doggie" lenses over the years. Please share your test results.

I have used Olympus OM equipment for the past 28 years, with maybe 13-15 lenses. I love the bodies and some of the lenses, but many of the lenses came up short of being top tier, with the later MC lenses superior. Don't get me wrong; most of the lenses I have used are very good, just not Leica good. I have owned several 50mm lenses: 1.8 (MC and SC), 1.4 (SC), 3.5 macro (MC, I think). All have been good performers, but none approach the 50mm Summicrons (M and R) that I have owned. FYI, my favorite Zuiko lenses that I have used are the 21 3.5, 24 2.0, 50 3.5 Macro, 100 2.0, and the 75-150 4.0. What is your test procedure? All my "tests" have been real world shooting over the years, not test charts, brick walls, or newspapers at a certain distance. I have not used the 50mm F2 Macro, I hear it is the best Olympus 50. I look forward to reviewing your results.

I fully subscribe to what David says in almost every regard. The Oly M system has been my SLR system of choice for 30 years now. I am very interested in what you find.

Hello Jim,

A similar lens test has been available for some time on Gary

Reese Zuiko Lens Test web site at:

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

Gary is very knowledgeable on the subject. You can trust his

tests.

It may be interesting to compare the one you will be doing and

his.

I am always surprised to see how many Leica users have been

Olympus SLR aficionados. When I bought an SLR camera in

1974, I could have bought almost anything on the market but

decided on the OM-1 because of its size. Since then, it is the

SLR system I have been using. In the same camera bag, I can

carry my M6TTL, a Tri-Elmar, a 35mm Summicron and an OM-1

with a zoom lens. Picture quality can be very near in most cases

but without doubt Leica cameras and lenses are better made.

 

-Jacques Leonard

I to used OM camers and lenses for about 10 years. Olympus has some outstanding glass, their 100mm Macro being rated near the Leica optic. I had excellent results from their 24 and 35, but found the 28 and 300 F4.5 to be dogs. And many agree that other than their latest 35-70 F2.8, many of their zooms have been poor. That's the case with many manufactures - some great, some poor and some so-so lenses. Leica has, I feel the highest number of excellent lenses in their range.

The 65-200 Zoom Macro is a great lens. Check out the Butterfly photo in my portfolio. It's about a 1:3 life size macro shot.

I also was a long-term Olympus OM user. Over 15 years I built up a modest range of OM equipment, including OM-2S and OM-2n cameras with 21/3.5 SC, 28/2.8 MC, 50/1.4 SC, 50/1.8 MC, 50/3.5 SC macro, 35-75/4 MC and 100/2.8 SC lenses, Winder 2 and T32 flash. My reason for noting whether each lens was single- or multi-coated (SC or MC) is that it can make a hell of a difference with Olympus lenses. Single-coated lenses can be much more flare-prone and, in some instances, optically inferior to multi-coated.

 

My unscientific impression of these lenses, based on my own experience, was:

 

21/3.5 SC with 'silver nose': Good resolution but not spectacular, high contrast and very little shadow detail. Images were not pleasing in bright sunlight with harsh shadows. I wouldn't buy this lens again!

 

28/2.8 MC: Not particularly highly rated in the Zuiko stable but I found it to have high resolution, good colour rendition and it did everything I ever asked of it.

 

50/1.4 SC: A real dog! Resolution was so poor as to render this lens unusable at apertures wider than f/4 - pointless for a fast lens. In fact, resolution was so dreadful that accurate focusing at close range and full aperture was impossible. I believe the later MC version was much better.

 

50/1.8 MC: Good performer and excellent value.

 

50/3.5 Macro SC: Excellent lens at macro distances but only so-so at normal range.

 

35-70/4 MC: The "poor relation" of Zuiko zooms in this focal length range but I had no problem with it, except that I found it difficult to focus in poor light and contrast was somewhat lacking.

 

100/2.8 SC: Nice for portraits but not very sharp and shadow details were lacking.

 

I sold all my Oly stuff earlier this year, partly because I couldn't get silver oxide batteries where I live (the only type of batteries that work properly with OMs); partly because I became dissatisfied with the optics (I know there are a few excellent Zuiko lenses but they're hard to find and expensive); and partly because the OM cameras are prone to break-down and the system has been abandoned by Olympus.