rokkor vs summicron 40mm

[crow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am trying to see if there is any difference in the images they produce, regardless of what is known about the minolta being multi coated or the controversy on this issue. The ideal would be using the same body, probably a m4/3 olympus and a test in exactly the same conditions, shooting the exact same subject matter, same light conditions, same aperture and exposure time, composition, so that we can compare the two pictures. Preferably a black and white shot, with the image of a richly textured object, such as a rough wall or a road lit in a way that TEXTURE stands out. Why? Because my presupposition is that the Leica one captures a bit more contrast between light and dark, especially when talking about the way light and dark amplifies textures. Perhaps I am not understood fully. If I had both lenses I'd perform this experiment my self and publish the results. People say both lenses are pretty much the same. It just so happens that I would be convinced if I had two pictures of the same composition to compare. Any one own both of these? Sorry, this could have been considered not to be a genuine M lenses thread since the rokkor isn't a leica(?).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

No time enough sorry. Those lenses are very close indeed. The Rokkor flares a bit less but both lenses are significantly less performant flare wise than modern ones anyway. Main differences lie in the sloping focus cam of the Summicron-C, its special filter thread, its Series 5 filters and its rubber hood complicating somewhat the use of UV/IR filters which are easier to find for the Rokkor (40.5mm Rocolax UV/IR filter). Beware that the filter of this link has no internal filter thread though so that a hood or another filter cannot be screwed onto it.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bjornthun]

I found on ebay an adapter ring from Series V to 39mm, which let me use regular b+w UV/IR filters as well as a chinese metall lens hood for the 40/2 Summicron-C. I think the ebay seller was "heavystar".

[01af]

I found on eBay an adapter ring from Series V to 39 mm, which let me use regular B+W UV/IR filters as well as a Chinese metall lens hood for the Summicron-C 40 mm.

Are you sure? Actually tried the adapter yet?

 

It might be an adapter to use Series 5 filters on E39 lenses. So would be useless on the Summicron-C 40 mm ... which, by the way, uses Series 5.5 filters, so it's useless either way.

[lct]

I found on ebay an adapter ring from Series V to 39mm, which let me use regular b+w UV/IR filters as well as a chinese metall lens hood for the 40/2 Summicron-C. I think the ebay seller was "heavystar".

Sounds interesting indeed but i've never tried it so far. Do you screw the hood onto the E39 filter and the latter onto the adapter ring?

eBay | New Metal Hood for Leica Summicron-C (S5.5) 40mm f/2.0

[bjornthun]

Sounds interesting indeed but i've never tried it so far. Do you screw the hood onto the E39 filter and the latter onto the adapter ring?

eBay | New Metal Hood for Leica Summicron-C (S5.5) 40mm f/2.0

 

This is the one I bought. I screw the lens hood into the filter, then filter into the adapter. This exists also with a lens hood for the Elmar-C 90/4.

[bjornthun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are you sure? Actually tried the adapter yet?

 

It might be an adapter to use Series 5 filters on E39 lenses. So would be useless on the Summicron-C 40 mm ... which, by the way, uses Series 5.5 filters, so it's useless either way.

 

I've owned the adapter for several months now, both for the 40/2 and the 90/4. So, yes I'm sure...

[jdlaing]

.......fitted to the lens.

First pic are the hood and adapter with IR Cut filter mounted.

Second pic is adapter and filter mounted on lens.

Third pic is Hood mounted to lens. The Hood is external threaded to fit the filter front threads.

 

I've had it about a year and a half and it works perfectly with no rubber hood stuff.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[TomB_tx]

I've used the same adapter and hood for a couple of years - works great.

[jdlaing]

The adapter threaded deeply on the lens and slightly interfered with the aperture ring. It rubbed ever so slightly. A quick trip the the rubber O ring department at the hardware store corrected the situation.

[bjornthun]

The adapter threaded deeply on the lens and slightly interfered with the aperture ring. It rubbed ever so slightly. A quick trip the the rubber O ring department at the hardware store corrected the situation.

 

I checked out if there was any clearance problem with the adapter and the aperture ring on my Summicron-C 40/2, but I couldn't find any such problem, so maybe they have improved the adapter.

[iedei]

i have never understood the fuss about filters for the 40mm Summicron.

 

i have ALWAYS used 39mm filters and hoods with no issues on the Summicron C.....they fit perfectly fine.

[lct]

Leica C lenses and screw-in Leica filters have not the same filter thread pitch* but can fit safely if the lens is not shaken too roughly. Beware not to screw the filter too tight though failing which the filter thread of the lens can be damaged permanently.

* 0.75mm for C lenses and 0.5mm for E39 filters.

[crow]

Well,

I am just saying comparing the two, or more correctly put, to compare images they both produce would be something easier to do on digit cams rather than film. I don't think this matter is of interest to any one, so much that they would carry an experiment, comparing the two shooting actual film, and taking the time to develop it.

What I am interested in is the visual qualities of each lens. Multicoated say some the rokkor is, and so Minolta started to declare this after Pentax started to indicate their lenses were multi coated, some say that leica always multicoated their post war, 1950's and on lenses.

If so, rokkor having multicoated glass, how about the images on the net proving this?

My only research so far has been of images coming from these lenses but having been digitized, and this is an other factor to consider.

Contrast wise, I see the summicron being closer to zeiss, sparkling, tone-wise having light areas next to dark ones, especially in pictures that are of textures of things, like water drops on road surfaces seen from a distance-after all a 40mm is not an "up-close" lens and it is closer to 35mm therefore somewhat wide angle.

The rokkor one seems like it brings up more middle tones between the two opposites, light and dark, again in texture shots, like tree brunches, or other roughly textured surfaces.

I don't expect anyone to actually shoot a CL with both lenses mentioned. But what I am interested is visual elements, tonal gradation in particular. I don't mind people talking about how difficult and expensive summicron c 40 filters are, but I was hopping of someone actually having noticed the same thing I have, regarding the visual aspect of the images produced, by both,under the same light, exposure, iso, composition, and framing conditions.

What you're talking about is interesting from a practical point of view. Continue people, and thanks whatever your input.

[lct]

Never seen significant differences on R-D1 and M8.2 except that the Rokkor is perhaps a bit more contrasty but i must do side by side comparos to view it. In fact the last time i did so was on March 03, 2005 on the father or grand father of this very forum ("Summicron-C vs M-Rokkor 40/f2" thread) but i can't seem to retrieve this thread here. About the Rokkor's coating, see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/229038-m8-lenses-2.html#post2015802