D200 with Leica glass

[ronald_moravec1]

Weather is still very bad so I did the test with inside using a studio light

set up.

 

Nikon D200 with 18/70 zoom set to 65mm

 

Nikon D200 with black 65 Elmar from 1985

 

It is hard to show here with full frame images, but the good news is digital

will resolve as much as film.

 

The bad news for Nikon lovers is the 65 Elmar puts the 18/70 zoom to shame as

far as resolution goes. It also loses shadow detail in the darks if you look

at the dolls skirt. This is typical of Japanese glass.

 

I must admit this is not fair test as the zoom is really not a macro lens and

I am using the at 5 feet.

 

I have been using this same test target for 15 years so I know what details

to look for. Shadow detail being one and the overall contrast and the

resolution of fine detail in the embroidery of the shirt sleeve and around the

bottom of the skirt. The Nikon failed totally, but the Leica 65 and 90 2.8,

not shown, both clearly separated the fine detail. The shadows can be brought

up with curves, resolution can`t be fixed. Both were sharpened the same with

smart sharpen setting of 230/ radius 2.3.

 

I fully expected the contrast to be lower and it is. 10% boost gets a match.

I have seen all this on film many times, but here I have the same camera,

sensor, tripod, lighting. All the variables were totally controled.

 

All that being said, I am happy with the new D200 18/70. When I get a decent

day, I will do an ourdoor comparison. The resolution difference may get

closer as the lens probably is not really best at 5 feet. The contrast and

shadow detail difference will remain as it does on film.

 

I will also say the newer Leica glass is far superior to these old Visoflex

lenses, but I have now way to attach them to a Nikon.<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

CamerQuest viso to Nikon adapter 65mm lens<div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

I'd rather see them unsharpened and 100% pixels. I think the 18-70 did just fine from what

I'm seeing. "failed totally" is not how I'd describe this.

 

What was the cost difference between these lenses?

[gator1999]

Correctly me if I'm wrong, but the picture from Elamr is bit too bright. What is the shutter setting of the frames? The same?

[User_502260]

From what you have shown they both look good. You may have purchased the Elmar in 1985 but it must have been out of production for some time by then. I wouldn't be too hard on the Japanese glass. I would be happy to put my 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS or even a much older 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor PC up against the Elmar. Either Nikkor would outperform it.

[ronald_moravec1]

Flash shots on manual. Both set to F8. Unsharpened tells you nothing as both look fuzzy.

 

A fair amount is lost when moved from my computer to P-net. Both are sRGB straight from the camera. I purposely did nothing to change the results.

[photo5]

Hey Ronald,

 

Why not test the Leica 18-70mm against the Nikon 18-70mm? What? There is no Leica 18-70mm?

 

Yep.

 

Dave

[waltflanagan]

It is extremely hard to judge lens quality from the pics you posted. You should be posting 100% crops of the RAW data with no post processing (no sharpening)

 

Still, I don't find the test very interesting. I would assume that a Leica prime would do better than a consumer grade zoom kit lens even though its a nice kit lens.

[oskar_ojala]

I don't see what this proves, you make plenty of assumptions. The details in shadows could be due to flare reducing contrast. On the posted pics, the crop is tighter on the Leitz. This is just a test at 5 feet, how about other distances. Unsharpened images don't look fuzzy, at least for me with my lenses ;-) The pics here are too small to tell anything.

 

These are just some points to take into account. Everybody uses what he likes, but if we're going to compare, then we should be aware what we are comparing and how.

[roland_vink]

The overall exposure from the 18-70 shot is darker than the 65 Elmar, that's why the shadows have blocked up. Test the 18-70 again and increase the exposure 1/2 stop. Also, the image magnification is less with the zoom, which may explain why you see less detail. Get a bit closer or zoom in a fraction.

 

When all variables the same - aperture, camera-subject distance, image magnification (focal length), and exposure - then you'll be able to make a meaningful comparison.

[inspiration point studio]

Interesting comparison. Although this is not an apple to apple comparison, it does point out that one cannot assume a zoom lens is just almost as good as a prime lens, and even a prime lens with a 20 year old design/age can outperform a modern zoom design.

[sbilly]

Zooms tend to be less sharp than primes... That ought to be it, 'cause my 80's 50mm 1.8f nikkor is much sharper that the 18-55mm DX Nikkor that i also have. So I believe fixed glass is much better at getting detais perfectly, however a zoom lens is much more practical than any prime.

[douglas_green1]

Really, please tell me why a slow 18-55mm zoom is more practical than a fast 50mm prime if I happen to be shooting in the 50mm range using dim available light?