Sharpness comparison of 35mm Summicrons

[wgpinc]

<p>I'm sure this will generate some yawns and complaints.<br>

http://kenrockwell.com/leica/comparisons/35mm-summicron/sharpness.htm<br>

I'm surprised at how well the 8 Element Summicron held up but I shouldn't be. I have always been sorry I sold mine. I still think it was the best Leica 35mm lens I ever owned. I've been using the asph version of the Summicron since I managed to trade it for a 4th version non aspheric. It never disappoints me.</p>

[tedms gallery]

<p>I've had the v3, v4, and cron asph, and I'd be very questionable of any focus sharpness tests that weren't done with either extensive focus bracketing with a RF, or focused with a live view system. I have found the cron asph having a more modern look than the v3 and v4, and in many types of photos, especially stopped down, did not see differences in the version 3,4, and asph. ymmv.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I've noticed that whenever Ken Rockwell does a review or comparison of Leica lenses, the touted performers enjoy an immediate spike in price on eBay and elsewhere. I believe Ken enjoys a greater readership than criticism of his site would imply.</p>

<p>What I take away from his review is that 50 year old Leica lens designs are still relevant, and in fact, competent contenders of todays Leica lenses. What is also apparent to me, however, is that the quality of machining, materials, and workmanship of the older lenses is superior to the plastic, aluminum, and glue of the new. That is why I limit my Leica lens purchases to mid 20th century Leica offerings. I love that brass and radioactive glass along with Leica signature performance.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Such absolute comparisons are, in my view, not relevant to the real world. I know that any lens which reaches a certain standard is better than my photography ever was or will be. I therefore aim to get the Good Enough rather than The Best.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Ted, I spoke to Mr. Rockwell before his release of these tests, and he assured me that his use of the Leica M9 and close confirmation of focus results, <strong>were his highest priority</strong>. He also assured me (In case anybody thought of this) that all lenses were free of any haze or fog.</p>

<p>I agree with Robert that his infuluence is far more than many wish to admit. Hence the <strong>"KR effect"</strong> on post review pricing.</p>

<p>Now, I can't say that I fully agree with his choice of words in this article, on the stated opinion:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"this lens' bokeh is pretty crummy at f/2, as it is with all these four lenses."</p>

</blockquote>

[leicaglow]

<p>It would be nice to see what the full size shot looked like. I keep wanting to support his family, and donate, until I realize he has a M9 and 35mm Summilux.... and I don't<g>. I'm glad he shoots real-life subjects, rather than fairly meaningless test charts, but I wish his subject matter varied a bit for a particular lens.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Pathetic guy, really: Puts his M9 on a tripod and readily declares it a test 'under controlled conditions'.</p>

<p>Shamelessly bashes canadian Leica quality control just because he feels like it.</p>

<p>Thinks a test with one totally random specimen each will be the end-all comparison.</p>

<p>Of course he uses JPEG, for no good reason at all but will wordily defended his laziness. Consequently – for the good of his growing family – he fails to notice that his published shots even show JPEG artifacts.</p>

<p>For the corners comparison shots he generally overexposes and furthermore evens out brightness levels between lenses. Real-life performance? Heck yes, after all, he was standing on his front porch. That's real life for Ken. Real money, too!</p>

<p>Without any data or experience he states that film performance differences will be smaller. Oh,yes? Well my 4th gen.(two specimen)/asph. (1, like new) comparison produced far more striking differences than his digital one. Maybe because I didn't change exposure? Or because I did not forget to use the timer option on my M4? Maybe because I had my lenses zero'd in with the test body? Not to *my* surprise, I almost always detected the differences (through my microscope) before reaching the 'grain level'. I would be so surprised if he had ever looked at grain through a microscope instead of flatbed or 1-hr-lab scans of it...</p>

<p>It's just another "test"/"review", as terminally flawed as the rest of his output. Sad though, that all the photo nerds fall for his neatly designed and accessibly written output and to that of his competitors in consumer misinformation.</p>

<p>They're to flabbergasted to realize that he is neither a photographer nor an (optical) engineer, not even a seasoned second hand trader! Add to this that he seems to lack the intelligence to set up a any kind of potentially meaningful test scheme: economically speaking, the living proof that producing sound test schemes would be overdoing it for his clientele.</p>

<p>To anyone still having their wits about them he's just a guy with some knowledge in HTML design. Nothing more.</p>

<p>Admittedly, I *am* glad for the owners of goggled 35s: they can finally sell those beasts for some money... that is Ken's only true service to the industry!</p>

<p>Cheers, Pete</p>

[steve_unsworth1]

<p>PC B, totally agree with you. I've never understood how anyone can take him seriously, let alone buy kit based on his 'tests'.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Pete (PC B) and Steve, the pictures themselves can speak a thousand optical engineering words.<br>

<strong>It is what it is !</strong></p>

<p>Also, he doesn't bash Canadian made lenses, he just meant in the interest of <strong>uniformity</strong> and since German lenses were readily available, he picked those.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>KR did state: "They probably have the same performance,"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After-all he does sanitize, but that's his attempt to make it more <strong>user friendly</strong>. <br>

That's his appeal to the "photo" masses; easy, get to the point, and do it with non-engineering talk.</p>

<p>It seems to me by your tone & misread, that you're blinded by a bias of some type...</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I bought my first Nikon D70 based on Ken's recommendations. I had been away from photography for years and the Nikon D70 was my first digital camera. Everything he said about the camera proved to be accurate. I also shoot all my digital images in jpeg, and I am perfectly satisfied with the results. If I were still a professional photographer, I would shoot RAW, but I'm happily an amateur photographer today and loath post processing. If an image does not come out of the camera looking as I would like it to look, it gets deleted. Ken tells you how to get great results right out of the camera. Starting with his preferences, I have subsequently come up with my own settings. </p>

<p>I am perplexed by the visceral dislike exhibited here by some people toward Ken Rockwell. Having had email conversations with him, I can tell you that he is very intelligent, forthcoming with his extensive knowledge, and a kind human being. I believe his sense of humor gets him in trouble sometimes, and I think he knows how to push his detractor's buttons, but the man is competent, successful and offers a legitimate opinion on the Internet. I wish he lived next door to me. I know we would be great friends. </p>

[tom_burke3]

Ken Rockwell is fun! Sometimes I find myself nodding in agreement with his views, sometimes I find myself shouting at

the monitor, but he always elicits a response. And I like his pictures, too. They are exactly what he says they are: neon

day-glo bright images. I wouldn't want to look at them all day, but every now and then, when I feel like seeing some

COLOUR, kenrockwell.com is where I go.

[Rob F.]

<p>Nothing too surprising in Rockwell's conclusions. Nothing unexpected, either. Looks like a competent piece of work.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>Very nice presentation, let the pictures do the talking, I wish that Ken had included the 35/2.8 Summaron in this test, this little old lens continues to amaze me with its image quality.</p>

[fred_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>Thinks a test with one totally random specimen each will be the end-all comparison.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's Erwin Puts, not Ken Rockwell.</p>

<p>Ken is a prankster and he freely admits it: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm Along with real information, he deliberates makes up outrageous claims as if sprinkling salt and pepper. Well at least he's not pretentious and patronizing like Puts who's also compelled to put down anything not made by Leica.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>After 20+ years of Photoshop, 15 years of desktop ink jet printing, a small-town library worth in books about the meaning of digital techniques in regard to photography/cinematography, plus more than a decade of photo.net promoting friendly exchange of "knowledge" amongst... people with cameras, there are still p-netters believing that photoshopped pictures on monitors are 'telling'. Ouch! (Admittedly, obvious PS blunder is telling - about the man at the mouse.)<br>

<br />@Tom: I can understand why you 'enjoy' K.R. In my eyes, you do it for all the *right* reasons!<br />Amongst which are not: aquiring reliable knowledge for making informed decisions worth thousands of dollars. But K.R. implies/claims sincerity both through the very form of his internet site and his writing approach. Obviously, this works subliminally/undetected with most people. In this 'comparison' though, and many other 'reviews', he states it in plain English as well.</p>

<p>@Gus: A raw file is a raw file. And a negative is a negative (under a microscope). Everything else is a joke, *scientifically* speaking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Even though many of the first three versions were <em>offshored</em> to Canada, none were used in this test. They <em>probably</em> have the same performance, but why <em>bother</em> with the <em>offshored lenses</em> today when you can <em>get the real thing</em> just as easily? Life's too short to <em>settle</em> for "<em>probably</em>" if you shoot LEICA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(my italics) If that is not dissing, what is? To mellow his outburst of dissing, he adds a hint of sarcasm with the last half-sentence but it is fake sarcasm. <br /><br />Bias.... If being fed up with preposterous reviewers is/was my bias and this may have lead to rather direct language, I plead guilty! I also admit being biased towards technical competence, resourcefulness, impartiality, and meaningful content. An easy-to-understand style of writing, however, is merely one of several preliminaries to being a decent reviewer of things technical.<br /> <br />@Robert Hooper: Why on earth should ‚his’ camera setting ‚invented‘ for amateurs represent The Way to do scientifically sound lens tests? <br /><br />....I have no doubt Ken appears kind/forthcoming/intelligent etc. in E-mail conversations with you and everybody else. Why shouldn’t he? Doing so is a important part of his business model! I never said (or thought to myself) that he comes across otherwise. One may now accuse me of paranoia, of course.<br /><br />... Nothing visceral, really. My criticism is based on rather simple rational thought/lines of argumentation deconstructing K.R.’s undeserved authority status as a reviewer. </p>

<p>If K.R.'s about-page was meant seriously/sincerely only the funny bits in his reviews were what you had to pay money for. How many truly good jokes or amusing puns are there per 'review'? Should he really have dared to base his familly-supporting business on his clientele's appreciation of him as a clown/comedian? Absurd! He makes his money from the clicks to links of the gear-selling businesses. Simple as that.</p>

<p>...Oh, hell, Puts! At least he bases his reviews on factory-new lenses which perform within factory specs. Besides, he does talk nicely about *some* Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. Just not about all of them. It is interesting to read his reviews about very old 'paperweight Leica lenses' (my terminology). He critiques all of them with unusually subtle language. Learn his language and you'll see that at least within the Leica-made lenses, his subtle way of ranking is trustworthy.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>PC B,</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is a good man, and I hate to see good people disparaged. You may disagree with his philosophy, methodology, conclusions, humor, wit, etcetera, all without belittling the man.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>That "ELC dissing" is clearly tongue-in-cheek, but I can understand why Ken Rockwell offends some Leica faithfuls. Anyway, I don't think he can actually live on whatever he makes from his website, not entirely anyway.</p>

<p>I am also familiar enough with Puts' "language" (whether it's actually proper English) to see the "damning with faint praise" he almost always employs regarding products from the Cosina factory. Or can we blame the fact that those samples he tested might not have been cherry-picked like the ones from Leica?</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>So true Robert !</p>

<p>IMHO, Ken Rockwell may be the one blogger/reviewer that has single handedly created the current <strong>"Film Renaissance"</strong> & can even stake a claim to the <strong>"Old Lens Renaissance"</strong>, going on in the photo world today.</p>

<p>From his reviews of "<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2010-02-rt-66/contact-sheet.htm">Kodak Brownie Hawkeye</a>" & "<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35rc.htm">Olympus 35 RC</a>" film cameras to "<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm">Leica M</a>" bodies & lenses. He's no doubt, created a snowball effect in favor of film. I honestly believe, that if KR could have rallied behind Kodachrome film, we would still have it today. But alas, he likes Fuji 50 instead; so bye bye Kodachrome!</p>

<p>I happen to know that coming up soon, KR has some <strong>very interesting</strong> old cameras of the past in his pipeline of reviews. Reviews such as these, keep the film medium in demand & accessible to many. Rather than it reverting to some limited specialty, only affordable to the wealthy.</p>

<p>He has reminded many, that there's <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm">a long list</a> of distinct advantages in having film still hang around. So if anything, give him <strong>his "props"</strong> just for that...</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I have compared about thirty 35mm lenses recently, and I used different set-ups in the comparison project. The better performing lenses can be identified. If Ken Rockwell does carefully planned and executed lens tetsing, then this is appreciated. There is no need to have such "online anger" at such write-ups.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I guess I have to yawn as well, given the subjectiveness of this man Rockwell.</p>

<p><em>"Many of the first three versions were offshored to Canada, but none were used in this test."</em></p>

<p>Well, wake up Ken? Leica Midland was Leitz in those years, with Wetzlar largely being the offshore facility in many ways. Many prominent lens designs were developed and made there and the M series would not have survived if Canada (Mandler's boss in Canada) had not persuadsed the German family to continue with it in Canada after the ill-fated M5 and CL designs from Wetzlar. If he can see a difference in performance between the Canadian and German lens samples, he should be working in the field of nanotechnology.</p>

<p><em>"If you're worried about sharpness on digital, this new ASPH is the very best overall, but on film, the differences are largely invisible since these subtleties get lost in the grain."</em></p>

<p>Sure. If you shoot Royal Pan or pushed Tri-X, but if you seek best quality and 10 x 15 or 12 x 18 inch or larger prints you will be using Velvia or Pan-F film, and you will likely see the difference at the edges between the ASPH and earlier versions.</p>

<p><em>"Many thanks to my local <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/leica/index.htm">LEICA</a> dealer, <a href="http://www.OCCamera.com/">OC Camera</a>, for having all these in-stock to loan me for this comparison."</em></p>

<p>Does Erwin get better shepherded lenses than those? Perhaps, but with Leica prices where they are and their emphaseis on manufacturing quality, I expect it makes litle difference. Erwinhas much more knowledge than most popular reviewers. A read of the introductory chapters of his recent lens book will show. He also praised the Cosina made Zeiss normal lens higher than the Leica equivalent at that time (Summy 50) for its better correction for digital sensors.</p>