Character of Certain Standard Lenses

[marc_lieberman1]

I'm beginning to understand and enjoy the different optical qualities

of various lenses with the same or similar focal lengths. I've

collected a 40mm Summicron -C, a 50mm collapsible Summitar (coated), a

50mm CV Nokton, and a 50mm DR Summicron. Would those of you who

understand the differences between these lenses kindly post your

favorite photos which show off the best qualities of each.

[richard_saylor]

I'm just wondering what digitized photos on the web could possibly prove concerning those lenses.

 

Richard

[peter_evans4]

Of those lenses, I only have the Nokton. I can vouch for one of the claims that's made for it: Whether I'm photographing passers-by, friends, canals, buildings or coastlines, they all come out aspherical.

[richard_saylor]

What is an aspherical "look?"

 

Richard

[working camera]

>What is an aspherical "look?"<

 

With Leica's current range- Tak Sharp across the imaging frame but with harsh bokeh. As opposed to the traditional "creamy look". See Doug's bird pics for a good example of the latter.

 

The shorter focal lengths for Leicas M's current aspherics also exhibit noticable vignetting sometimes seen as darker "bands" along short edges of the frame. Not as bad as the Noctilux but the 28 cron asph 35 lux asph and 50 lux asph all have it.

[ronald_moravec1]

I put up pics from a Summar, Summitar, 3.5 Elmar, Summarit, DR, amd version 3 from 1969 Summicron. They all look the same.

[regit_young1]

Not my favorites nor here to show off the best qualities ... but here're two shots from the only 2 50mm I have (still waiting for a Jupiter-8 to arrive). One from 50/1.4 Summilux Asph and one from Summar 50/2, I guess I don't have to tell you which is which :)

<br><br>

Both at f2...<br>

<img src=http://www.pbase.com/image/50414273/original.jpg>

<img src=http://www.pbase.com/image/50414275/original.jpg>

[dan flanders]

It is difficult to understand just what such a display would prove. I've owned all but the CV, in addition to a 1.4 Nikkor, a 2.0 Amotol, a 2.0 Ektar, a 2.0 Xenon, a 2.0 Jupiter among several others, and though I could discern some difference in the actual images produced it is doubtful that reproduction on this site could prove anything, positive or negative!

[jtk]

I recall many demonstrations of differences in bokeh here on photo.net. But they were all extreme differences, didn't convey subtle differences we might see in prints.

 

Regit's comparison between an incredible modern lens and one of Leica's mediocrities tells a useful tale...the mediocrity did that particular job acceptably, but we clearly see differences in sharpness and contrast (both appear over-sharpened IMO).

 

I happen to use a decent, moderately priced 3-yr-old 19" LCD monitor...few CRTs are as good visually (though there are plenty of better LCDs)...monitor has to do with ability to see differences.

[larry_kincaid1]

Dan, why don't you look at the images and then comment directly on them rather than express your opinion about scan quality first. We all have seen and know the limits of jpg scans at widths of 510 on different monitors. But this is all we can share on the web. Do you seen any differnces in the scanned photos above or not? Are they a weak version of the same diffences seen in prints, or not?

[adrian bastin]

Regit's second picture has the slight lightening in the centre that can be found in Summar images. The first has more even tonality and contrast over the whole picture, suggesting the more modern lens, and, not wide open.

[conrad_hoffman]

Just wandering through the forum for no good reason, and having no familiarity with the lenses in question, the photos tell me less than one might hope. The angle is different so I hesitate to say anything about the out-of-focus areas. The two jackets are different, so any comments on rendition are more likely optical illusion, rather than reality. One image looks burned in on the lower edge and other areas, so I have to wonder whether the images were done at the same time and under the same conditions. The image also looks like it might have some camera or subject motion. Bottom line is, I prefer the higher contrast and more even toned image, but without more description from the photographer, it would be risky to ascribe what I see to any inherent characteristics of the lenses.

[jongraham1]

The main difference I see is that the shoes she is wearing are different in each shot.

 

Other than that the first (dark shoes)is clearly a better lens, irregardless of the angle or scan.

[michael s.]

That settles it: "It's gotta be the shoes."

 

s/Spike Lee -:)

[jerry_lehrer]

Regis--I guess I would need a better monitor than a 12inch B&W CRT to see any

difference. I prefer looking at 11x14 glossy chemical prints to see

differences.

[john sypal]

<p>Taking Peter's joke one step further, and in the spirt of those tired, tasteless "your mom"

jokes I present:</p>

 

<p>"Your mother is <em>so</em> big, that even when you take her picture with a 4th

generation 1976 Summicron, she still comes out Aspherical."</p>

[john sypal]

<p>*Ahem*-- "Your Mother" not directed at anyone in particular, and certainly not at the

writer of this post- sorry if there was any confusion. *_*; </p>

 

<p> There are some better jokes of this nerdy type on <a href="http://www.yourmom.com/

index.php?

PHPSESSID=19bf02bafc879c5fdece9186f2c58f0a&PID=4&PHPSESSID=19bf02bafc879c5fdece

9186f2c58f0a">this page</a>.</p>

[dan flanders]

"Dan, why don't you look at the images and then comment directly on them rather than express your opinion about scan quality first." <p> ????