Testing various Leica and other M/LTM 50mm lenses on the GF1

[Nick De Marco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am off the Asia at the end of the month so narrowing down on my gear. I am taking the Mamiya 7 MF rangefinder camera (with 43mm, 65mm and 150mm lenses) so for digital I am taking the GF1 which I shall use for street, some portraits and some landscape work.

 

I have the 20mm Panny f1.7 lens which, as everyone who has used it will affirm, is a wonderful lens and will be the main one to use. I splashed out on the 7-14mm lens which I am awaiting. I wanted one LTM/M type lens to take, and one I could use for telephoto work. So I have been testing various 50mm lenses I own on the GF1 to see which gives me the best results.

 

The original pool of lenses I tested on the GF1 are:

 

1. Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM

2. Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM

3. Leica 50mm Summilux f1.4 (first version) - M fit

4. Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 (copy of the Zeiss 50/1.5)

5. Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (pre-asph new version, 1980s-1990s) - M fit

6. Leica Summicron 50mm f2 (pre-asph, chrome older version) - M fit

7. Voigtlander Heliar 50mm f2 (collapsable)

8. Leica Elmar 50mm f2.8 (old M fit collapsable version).

 

This first test is shooting at 4 apertures, same subject indoors on a tripod. I have narrowed it down to three lenses on the basis of this. Just jpegs, no photoshop.

Click on the link to see the results: Test 1 Photo Gallery by Nick De Marco at pbase.com.

 

I hope to do 2 further tests before going to select which one I take. The next test shall be shooting at 400 iso handheld on different days with Raw converted to black and white, which in part will test which lens suits my style of street shooting the best. The final and most important test (for my purposes) between the three will be of an outside landscape, at infinity focus on tripod.

 

It should go without saying that these test are not done under laboratory conditions, reflect my own subjective view of the lenses and how I best use them, and the fact that I may have varying quality copies of lenses. However, instead of approaching the test with my own prejudices of what I thought would be best, or 'brand loyalty' I am trying to select the 50mm which does best on the GF1.

 

I shall post the results of the further tests when complete.

 

Nick

[Nick De Marco]

2nd test here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/test_2_bw_handheld

 

This test is without doubt the least scientific. No tripods were used. Weather conditions were different in each lens test (and as I found them). The subjects photographed were different. There is no uniform aperture. And I was in a different state of mind when using each one. But for these flaws it is a useful test for me. t is as much about how you can use this lens, handheld, focussing and setting the aperture rather on the hoof, as it is image resolution etc, because this is how I am going to use the 50mm lens when abroad sometimes. It won't always be on a tripod and me have lots of time to set up.

 

All shots were taken in raw mode. The black and white conversions are all done using the same software (Alien skin, Ilford Delta 100), they have been sharpened to exactly the same %, and there is very little other photoshop work.

 

All three lenses were good enough in this test, and and I would be happy having any of them for black and white work on the GF1.

 

Each sub-gallery below contains 8 photos selected from those I took with each lens on a particular day in the past 2 weeks. Click on the sub-gallery to see the 8 shots with each lens.

 

I think if I had to rate them, though, I would have to give this round to the Canon. It was both sharp enough (when necessary) and had an attractive bokeh in the shots with more out of focus areas. I like the 'look' and 'character' of this lens on the GF1. I feel it produces photographs just the right amount of contrast and depth. Also, and just as important to me, it was the best one from the standpoint of using handheld. The lens is heavier and wider than the other two (though it is also shorter than both of them), but its size and design means it is easier to manually change aperture and focus, for me, than with the other two thinner lenses, especially the Heliar which I don't like from a useability standpoint, when on the GF1. The only thing to worry about is the infinity lock (which is useful on a manual focus lens), because it is next to the GF1 M lens adapter release, so you must be careful not to press the wrong button and have your lens fall off the side of a bridge etc!

 

The Summicron looks good. I felt it lacked contrast stopped down, for the best photos I had to shoot at f2 or f2.8, but then the bokeh is rather in your face and violent for me. Some of the stopped down architecture ones worked very well though, and it is a good lens for portraits, perhaps because if its low contrast (my copy at least).

 

The Heliar was again pretty flawless, good, tending on the high, contrast. But for me this made it look a bit too much like the modern lens it is. I don't find it has much character, which is what you half want from an M or LTM lens on the GF1. As above, I find the handling of this lens fiddly, and you notice this more when using the lens handheld and manually focusing.

 

Overall ratings handheld black and white:

Canon 9/10

Summicron 7.5/10

Heliar 7/10

 

Canon wins round two

[h00ligan]

That's quite a collection you have. All lenses look great to my eyes. This was very interesting for me - thank you for taking the time to share your results, and some nice shots in there!

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks Ed

 

Round three and the final conclusion

 

And the winner is .....

 

 

Test 3 Final Photo Gallery by Nick De Marco at pbase.com