50/1.4 Summilux aspheric versis Millennium Nikkor 50/1.4

[ed_schwartzreich]

I have put up a detailed comparison between these two lenses on

Rangefinderforum.com, on their Nikon forum. This may be of interest to some

shooters.

 

Ed

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25733

[Troll]

Velly intelesting.

[vivek iyer]

Thanks for posting it here, Ed. I will read through again.

 

It looks like a first class review!

[kevin m.]

From the article: "Use of the R-D1 with its 3:2 field cut of course limits light rays from the

outer field from hitting the sensor and being used in this comparison, <i>but a good

characterization of both lenses is still possible</i>." (italics mine)

<p>

Not really. What good is a lens test in which some 30% of the imaging area is cropped?

[paul_chan4]

There was this spanking new S3 Millenium kit sold on the auction site for $1525 only today. If your thread was posted earlier I'd have gone for it. What a miss.

[harry__florida_]

Did you mention somewhere the shutter speed equivalent and type of tripod used?

[ed_schwartzreich]

The tripod was an old Quicket; I don't know the exact model. I did look at the output data to check shutter speeds. The shots between lenses were closely eqivalent. The slowest speeds were on the close-ups of the cans at the higher f/ stops, and the Christmas lights, about 1/3 of a second.

 

Ed

[john_graham3]

Generally most people are concerned with a lens's corner performance as well as in the center, so it's an interesting article for whomever uses the RD-1 but even the upcoming M8 will use more of the image circle, let alone film.

[eliot_rosen1]

Ed, although your tests were obviously done carefully, they are not really good tests of the capability of those lenses. You would really need to test each lens on a film camera body using slow speed slide film and project the images on a large screen to be able to see the differences.

 

But looking at the images you posted, it does seem like the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH images have a little more "punch" (the colors are more vivid and the contrast is a little higher).

 

The 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH has better MTFs than any other 50 that I have seen at F/1.4. One differences is that it has very even contrast across most of the frame (except the far corners). This improved performance in the periphery would not be tested using a sensor with a 1.5X or 1.6X crop factor. This lens was designed for outstanding performance on film.

[john_jovic]

Ed

 

How did you make the cat stay still for the pics with 2 different lenses? It appears that the cat has not moved.

 

JJ

[ed_schwartzreich]

Eliot,

The testing was not intended fully to examine all of the characteristics of the lenses, but to compare them. I think there is a difference between the two concepts.

 

John,

This is an old cat, a 1988 or 1989 model, so she likes, at times, to stay in one place. Being a cat, she likes also to be admired visually.

 

Ed

[karl_keung]

"There was this spanking new S3 Millenium kit sold on the auction site for $1525 only today.

If your thread was posted earlier I'd have gone for it. What a miss."

 

 

 

but the lens could only be mounted on a Nikon, maybe nikon should start making

rangefinder lens for leica mount as well...

[john_jovic]

Ed

 

I could repeat those cat pics on different days, even months and my cat won't move, he's stuffed...

 

JJ

[robert_clark]

Accurately focusing might help the comparison mean something. It seems you missed focus with the Summilux in the tin comparison. It's so obvious I'm surprised no one has pointed it out.

 

This probably affected the claimed difference in depth of field.

[ed_schwartzreich]

Robert,

 

Thanks for the heads up. Indeed the center of focus on the f/1.4 image with the Summilux is off. However, things are more complex than you would think. I retook these images, and also altered the Summilux's focus by small increments both behind and in front of the observed focal point on the left can. In each case, the the can on the right was in better focus than the same scene shot with the Nikkor. I'll replace the out-of-fous Summilux image on the web shortly.

 

Mu surmize is that the floating elements on the Summilux do indeed change the depth of field, but not beyond the laws of physics. You will see when the picture is posted that the dof BEHIND the can is sacrificed in order to create greater dof IN FRONT. This makes optical sense.

 

Ed

[ed_schwartzreich]

I have now reshot and replaced the 6 images in question, and it is uploaded onto the website.

 

Ed

[nesrani]

"You will see when the picture is posted that the dof BEHIND the can is sacrificed in order to create greater dof IN FRONT. This makes optical sense."

 

Sorry, this makes no sense - DOF is always greater behind the point of focus than in front of it.

[fred_c1]

>DOF is always greater behind the point of focus than in front of it.

 

Not always. Apparent DOF could be smaller behind the point of focus if the lens has a noticeably concave field curvature.

 

Of course, it still doesn't make sense -- unless the 50 ASPH is designed like the Minolta 24/2.8 VFC.

[ed_schwartzreich]

I have emailed Erwin Puts to ask his thoughts. He has written extensively about this lens.

 

The Minolta 24/2.8 VFC was the type of thing I had in mind when I felt that it made more physical sense for the optical engineers to change the plane of focus, curving it forwards, than to merely (somehow) just extend the DOF.

 

One further thought: from my understanding, floating elements can change the focal length of the lens (shorten it), thus increasing DOF. But even if this was the case, it would not explain why I found the DOF greater in front.

 

Ed