iphoenix Posted December 9, 2011 Share #1 Posted December 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Has anyone done a comparison between the screw mount Summarit f1.5/50mm; Canon f1.5/50mm and Sonnar f1.5/50mm lenses? I have a Canon lens (in clean, clear and "as new" condition) , but would like to know how it would compare under test to the others (bearing in mind it is to be fitted to both M series and Barnack bodies). Rgds, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Hi iphoenix, Take a look here Is there a comparison between 50/f1.5 lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted December 9, 2011 Share #2 Posted December 9, 2011 All the same old Zeiss Sonnar design, the Jupiter 3 should be included in the list. And the Nikkor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoenix Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted December 9, 2011 All the same old Zeiss Sonnar design, the Jupiter 3 should be included in the list. And the Nikkor. Thank you, can I include the Jupiter 3 in the comparison?; but I wasn't aware of the Nikkor f1.5/50mm. I must keep studying. A comparison would now be even more appreciated. Rgds, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 9, 2011 Share #4 Posted December 9, 2011 Is the difference between 1.5 and 1.4 important to you, and if so, why? Maybe what you want is actually a technical comparison between different 1930's and 1940's designs? It may be of course, for conoisseurs of awfulness. The old man from the Sonnar Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 9, 2011 Share #5 Posted December 9, 2011 A forum search should help. A while ago some people (in the Far East IIRC) assembled a mass of 50mm lenses and made some comparison shots. They weren't posted here, but were referred to in at least one thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2011 Share #6 Posted December 9, 2011 It may be of course, for conoisseurs of awfulness. The old man from the Sonnar Age Actually I rather like the Summarit - although the bokeh can be a bit on wild side Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 9, 2011 Share #7 Posted December 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lot of years ago I had a Jupiter 50 1,5 (I don't even remember if it was a Jupiter 3... I presume Jaap is right about) and now have a Summarit 50 1,5 (and a Xenon too, in practice the same lens, but Xenon is prewar - uncoated, Summarit is very "recent"). Unfortunately, I can't make any direct comparision today... Jupiter was part of my Zorky set, which went away in 1979 with the arrival of a Leica IIIc (:)she my first...): I have some bw 20x30 prints taken with the jupiter... I can't comment on contrast because are hand-made prints with personal control of contrast through chemicals+paper... the "native fingerprint" is hard to compare... About sharpness, the prints that are clearly taken at stops in the 8-11 range are not only satisfactory, but even excellent... while tha few that were taken (i think) wide open or next to do show a significant decrease in sharpness from center to borders : this is the most importane difference that I can note comparing it with my Summarit, which is very constant in the whole neg area even wide open : personally, I like a lot it. To be precise... I have TWO Summarits... (BM + SM)... the older in SM is much better, simply because the BM is a worn/hazed/scratched item bought for cheap... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted December 9, 2011 Share #8 Posted December 9, 2011 The Jupiter 1.5/50mm and the Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50mm are an identical optical formula. After WWII the Russians, as part of war reparations, carted off the complete Carl Zeiss Jena and Zeiss Ikon factories, including camera and lens designs, as well as a few unwilling designers. The Kiev and practically all lenses for the FED and Zorki are exact copies if Zeiss designs. So - the Sonnar 1.5 and the Jupiter 1.5 are the same - the only difference may be build precision and build quality. The Canon is of a different optical design but, same Sonnar formula, as is the Nikkor. To correct Jaap the Nikkor is not 1.5 but, 1.4 - there was a 1.5/50mm Nikkor but, is very rare as it was produced for less than a year, replaced by the long-running 1.4 lens. I used the Canon 1.5, as well as the Summarit and will agree that the Summarit is be the better of the two. I would be willing to bet though, that the 1.4 Nikkor could be the best of the bunch - David Douglas Duncan used it almost exclusively on his Leica and that is what made Nikkor lenses known in the rest of the world. Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 9, 2011 Share #9 Posted December 9, 2011 The 1.4 Nikkor, as I think has been already remarked somewhere, was of course the lens that blew the Leica 1.4 Summilux v.1 out of the water, making it the most short-lived lens in Leica history, except for the Elmax and the Leitz Anastigmat. It was the 'bite' i.e. the higher contrast that did it. The old man from way back then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoenix Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted December 10, 2011 Thank you to everyone for your information and comments. I was especially interested in the comments about the Nikon 50/1.4, as I have one attached to my Nikon S2 (bayonet of course). I used it in 2003 during a trip to the U.K., but didn't realise it had a dose of fungus. The flare was terrible. It's since been cleaned but as Leicas have been breeding around here lately; I haven't used it. Must do so now. I have a number of Jupiter 50's in both screw and Contax/Kiev mounts, but all in f2 version. I found out the hard way that the other focal lengths of these lenses bottom out when trying to fit them to a Nikon Rangefinder . One further question derived from comments regarding the Canon lens: Could it be expected to deliver similar bokeh, contrast and sharpness (centre and edge) to a coated, round aperture Summitar in the same condition? Rgds, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted December 10, 2011 The quality of the T* coating on the post war Opton Sonnars is supposed to be better than the contemporaneous Soviet era Jupiter 3, made in Kiev, Ukraine in Contax Mount and at KMZ, Moscow in LTM. Also the sample variation/quality control is not surprisingly, superior on the Sonnar. The Jupiter 3 has an aluminium alloy body against the brass of the Sonnar. It is not uncommon for Jupiter 3's to be "converted" into Sonnars, given the substantial difference in value but the body material always gives it away. The advantage of the Jupiter 3 is that they are relatively common in LTM, whereas the Opton Sonnar in LTM is VERY rare and you have to use a quite expensive focusing mount to use on an LTM or L-M camera. On another thread which I cannot locate at the moment, I published some crops of shots taken with the Opton Sonnar and final model 50 Summitar. These showed that the Opton Sonnar was marginally sharper at f1.5 than the Summitar was at f2 and quite a lot contrastier. The Summarit is quite an old design, being little more than a drip coated version of the pre-war Schneider designed Xenon. I am not sure about sharpness in comparison to the Sonnar but it is certainly considerably lower contrast. I was trying to think of something most of us would have access to to take a photo of with the different lenses and say an M8 or 9. The best I could come up with is a Dry Martini or Noilly Prat bottle, which has quite a lot of fine detail on it. Sharpness tends to deteriorate as the level in the bottle falls however. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted December 10, 2011 Share #12 Posted December 10, 2011 .......... The best I could come up with is a Dry Martini or Noilly Prat bottle, which has quite a lot of fine detail on it. Sharpness tends to deteriorate as the level in the bottle falls however. Wilson You should have had a bottle of gin for the test too, the bokeh would have been superb! Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoenix Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted December 10, 2011 You should have had a bottle of gin for the test too, the bokeh would have been superb! +1 or 2 or 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.