Massive 50mm comparison test

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Flavio for your hard work in producing this comparison. I'm sure some will debate its validity as well as its conclusions, but in the end, it is, IMHO, the image-the captured shot which really matters.

[OR120]

Thank you Flavio. Very interesting to read different opinions. To me it's like looking at photographs/paintings/art. You show one photo to ten people -- You get ten different opinions. Again, I enjoying reading and appreciate your effort. We live in a very good time - there are so many good lens makers today.

Edited February 25, 2021 by OR120
sp

[elmars]

Best comparison I ever read about 50 mm M-lenses. 

[Theory033]

Check your full-size F5.6 crops from the Summicron and the Planar in the first scene, as they appear to be identical, whereas in the thumbnails there is a difference. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Theory033

[Harpomatic]

31 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

Thank you Flavio for your hard work in producing this comparison. I'm sure some will debate its validity as well as its conclusions, but in the end, it is, IMHO, the image-the captured shot which really matters.

Thank you. I agree with you, as I mention in the conclusions: almost every one of these lenses will deliver, the main ting is the content of the image.

 

21 minutes ago, OR120 said:

Thank you Flavio. Very interesting to read different opinions. To me it's like looking at photographs/paintings/art. You show one photo to ten people -- You get ten different opinions. Again, I enjoying reading and appreciate your effort. We live in a very good time - are so many good lens makers today.

Thanks! Yes, you are absolutely right. Everybody’s opinions differ dramatically, and that’s the beauty of it, as long as we respect each other’s ones.  And it’s true, we are so spoiled for choices nowadays!

 

14 minutes ago, elmars said:

Best comparison I ever read about 50 mm M-lenses. 

Wow, thanks! That was the intent...so glad to hear that someone thinks so!

 

12 minutes ago, Theory033 said:

Check your full-size F5.6 crops from the Summicron and the Planar, they appear to be identical, whereas in the thumbnails there is a difference. 

Well spotted, thanks! Corrected now: it was the Summicron image that was repeated. The Planar one is now there.

[giannis]

If I can add something, as a big fan of the original  f/1.5 Sonnar (7 elements, 3 groups) for the Contax rangefinder:

The new f/1.1 7Artisans seems to be the best modern interpretation of that lens. It behaves exactly like the original sonnar, even magnifying its good qualities, *more* than the modern f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar. Some of the qualities I like about the original Sonnar:

• 13 curved blades giving circular bokeballs at all apertures. Really important if you mostly use the lens between f/2 and f/5.6 as I do
• great bokeh between between f/2 and f/5.6, no outlining and smooth against a contrasty centre. Very good for subject isolation
• spherical aberration giving it glow at wide open, which I like a lot for portraits, it feels like using a ¼ promist filter. Bokeh goes a bit crazy at that aperture, hence a "dreamy" result. Don't like it? No problem: the lens changes character drastically even from f/2. 
• sharp and contrasty like any good fifty at f/4 and below (sharpness and contrast picks up a lot even from 1 stop stopped down)
• field curvature that objectively is a flaw, but when shooting people it helps isolate even better from the background

The combination of the above makes it, for me, a great people and general walkaround/street lens. It's like having 2 lenses in 1: great portrait lens up to f/4, good general purpose lens further down, with a bonus of a special look (like a promist filter) at wide open, which is very appealing for skin, and goes away even half a stop stopped down if you're not a fan.

Now the f/1.1 Artisans seems to have all those qualities - and exaggerated at that! - due to the faster aperture and modern coatings. I'm really glad someone decided to release such a classic design without diluting it, but further enhancing its qualities and speed. At the price it sells for it's an absolute steal. Even the original 70+ year old Sonnar costs the same or more. Or even the russian versions (Jupiter-3) are ~150€, versus a brand new, faster lens with warranty at 300€.

I believe Zeiss made a blunder with the new Sonnar. The main one being the number and shape of aperture blades, which ruined the perfectly circular bokeh with chainsaw shapes. They did it to reduce focus shift (which still exists). Also changed the number of groups and optical formula a bit, to reduce sperical aberrations wide open. The problem is, they sacrificed the areas where it was better than typical lenses and that people loved (smooth circular bokeh, glow wide open), to make it slightly less bad in areas where it was worse - and will *always* be worse - than typical lenses and that people didn't much care about. A shame really.

Anyway, to balance out my half-raving, half-rant wall of text, here's a photo with the original Sonnar around f/2 or so.

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!

Edited February 25, 2021 by giannis
typos

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very impressive comparison, thank you for sharing with us Flavio. 

[jiri-c]

2 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

Thanks for the comment. Can you clarify wha you mean there? I don’t understand, sorry. 

 

Can I ask you what you don’t agree with? I’m looking to have a good discussion here on the thread, I’d love to understand the other points of view!

hello

it’s about validity of tests at f8 (nowadays rather f5.6) and mid distances. about all lenses performs there the same. difference is in feel and sometimes of the character. i think that testing at MFD and infinity is more about mesurable or rather visible differences.

my difference in final ratings is rather based on the feel than on the measurable. 50 Noktons left me mostly indifferent (LTM 1.5, M1.5v1, 1.1) despite undisputable optical qualities felt just boring to me. my experience with Planar was better than yours (no focus shift). i also think that you were a little harsh on Leica glass (i only experienced Cron 50, and that felt perfect). only thing i would object with your rating system is separate mark for sunstars. i think this is more or less very marginal optical property of the lens, and should not be at the same level of rating as the others (that are just right).

sorry for my english, sometimes i slip into uncomprehensible sentence structure. i should pay more attention to it.

and again: thanks for that big work of yours. i also enjoy your writing and other articles. you have a ease when it comes to write simply about things that are not simple at all.

[Harpomatic]

2 hours ago, giannis said:

Anyway, to balance out my half-raving, half-rant wall of text, here's a photo with the original Sonnar around f/2 or so.

Giannis, thanks a lot for the description of the 7Artisans qualities! It does make a lot of sense when you put it that way.

In my review I chose to base the evaluation on more objective parameters, which look at plain optical quality rather than vintage/special rendition. That kind of rendition is even more subjective than the parameters I chose, robbing a review of any broader application for a lens choice.

I like a lens to be transparent, as much as possible, across its aperture and focus range. That is what I was looking for in the lens that would become my only 50mm. When that choice is made, I stop thinking about the gear and start shooting images. I like minimalism, which means one lens per focal length and three or four focal lengths in total. I have 28, 35, 50 and 90, and I can’t think of a reason to get any other focal lengths. I shoot 95% of my photography on the 50mm, and I want a versatile, do-it-all one. I found it, as far as it’s possible, in the Nokton 1.5 II. Saving a bunch of money compared to the Summilux ASPH, without giving up anything in quality.

A lens like the C Sonnar or the 7Artisans would make no sense at all for me: I just returned from a walk with the 7Artisans and found myself wanting all the time when shooting: definitely not a lens for me. I will be glad to see it go. Hopefully it will be bought by someone that will enjoy it as much as you do! 

[Robert Blanko]

Thanks, Harpomatic! 👍

Very interesting comparison, even though I have to admit that I so far only read the bokeh section... 😉

The C Sonnar has the remarkable behaviour that stopping down improves the bokeh. According to my experience, even slightly stopping down to 1.7 sometimes makes the background less busy if you have a background like in the tree setup in your example.

[Harpomatic]

55 minutes ago, jiri-c said:

you were a little harsh on Leica glass (i only experienced Cron 50, and that felt perfect). only thing i would object with your rating system is separate mark for sunstars. i think this is more or less very marginal optical property of the lens, and should not be at the same level of rating as the others (that are just right).

 

Thanks for the clarification! I think that a comparison like this needs to remain grounded on measurable parameters, otherwise we just sail in personal opinions and nothing else. I really tried to be objective.

Regarding the Leicas I don’t think I was harsh: believe me, I really wanted to like the Leicas and I was set on keeping the Summilux and possibly the Summicron as well because is such a beautiful thing. But using them side to side, seeing the results and trying to be objective without being influenced by prejudice or brand bias, I was not harsh on the Leicas. The real thing to put into perspective is that I analysed minute details of the lens optical properties, with differences taht are seen only when pixel-peeping in most cases. 

Look at the Nokton 1.5, the first version: had it not been for the horrible (to me) ergonomics, that would have been my lens long ago and I would have stopped straight away with my search. In the test is a lower scorer, but in use is a great performer and it never, ever left me wanting with the images I shot with it. Without these thorough tests I wouyld have never noticed most of its foibles, because I don’t really look in my pictures. I want content, if the lens is competent enough and doesn’t impart its own mark on the image I’m happy.

[sinjun]

Thanks so much for this Flavio. You write very well with clarity and a simple, direct style. Plenty of well-illustrated specifics to go with the inevitably subjective elements which, no doubt, people will find things to take issue with - not least the extent to which 'character' is important in a lens.  This may have been a labour of love but let no one be in any doubt that an incredible amount of hard work has gone into it. The end result is not just a very useful resource but also a really good read.

[duoenboge]

Thank you for the great job. In the last few weeks I have tried to compare 5 50mm lenses and just got lost with the large amount of data.

[me111]

I have owned 50mm Summilux ASPH and 50mm Summicron v5. I feel that there might be something wrong with your Summilux in the flare department. My observation is that my Summilux does not flare easily (or to translate from my feeling, I almost want to say that my Summilux cannot flare.) My Summicron v5, on the other hand, tends to flare a lot.

Other than this difference from my observation, I must say that this looks to be a well done research. Interesting read and thank you for your afford.

[Gobert]

I cannot recognize the flaring of the Lux either.

[Harpomatic]

14 minutes ago, sinjun said:

Thanks so much for this Flavio. You write very well with clarity and a simple, direct style. Plenty of well-illustrated specifics to go with the inevitably subjective elements which, no doubt, people will find things to take issue with - not least the extent to which 'character' is important in a lens.  This may have been a labour of love but let no one be in any doubt that an incredible amount of hard work has gone into it. The end result is not just a very useful resource but also a really good read.

Thank you, this comment means a lot! I put a lot of effort into the writing for it to be clear and not to ramble too much.

The images are there so anyone can make their mind up with their eyes, I describe what I see.

I really hope this will be a good resource!

[Harpomatic]

17 minutes ago, duoenboge said:

Thank you for the great job. In the last few weeks I have tried to compare 5 50mm lenses and just got lost with the large amount of data.

I certainly felt like I was drowning in data during the last couple of months! 🤪

 

17 minutes ago, me111 said:

I have owned 50mm Summilux ASPH and 50mm Summicron v5. I feel that there might be something wrong with your Summilux in the flare department. My observation is that my Summilux does not flare easily (or to translate from my feeling, I almost want to say that my Summilux cannot flare.) My Summicron v5, on the other hand, tends to flare a lot.

Other than this difference from my observation, I must say that this looks to be a well done research. Interesting read and thank you for your afford.

 

12 minutes ago, Gobert said:

I cannot recognize the flaring of the Lux either.

I was totally taken aback when I saw that flare behaviour. I took the lens off the camera, looked through it with the flashlight, cleaned it thoroughly, tried again, and there was no change. That something is off there is no doubt. Having said that, the optical performance is great elsewhere and there are no other areas in which the lens is behaving oddly. 

On the other hand the flare artefact that looks like a wet lens element only goes so far: the amount of overall flare I got was enormous at times, I have many more shots that would be wipeouts but where that “wet” flare is not a factor. I can show them here if anyone is interested.

The Summicron? I found it to be less dramatic than its reputation would imply, but then I used it on a walk and it blasted the frame with flare like fireworks with the sun just outside the frame. It is so difficult to recreate all the flare instances!

[Fgcm]

58 minutes ago, Harpomatic said:

Regarding the Leicas I don’t think I was harsh: believe me, I really wanted to like the Leicas and I was set on keeping the Summilux and possibly the Summicron as well because is such a beautiful thing. But using them side to side, seeing the results and trying to be objective without being influenced by prejudice or brand bias, I was not harsh on the Leicas. The real thing to put into perspective is that I analysed minute details of the lens optical properties, with differences taht are seen only when pixel-peeping in most cases

Flavio,

you did a great job comparing 10 lenses. Kudos. I really like the four articles you posted.

I suspect the summicron you tested is a bad copy or needs a calibration. Generally speaking, summicron V performs pretty good at infinity.

about focus shift, you are right: stopping down, my Summicron 50 shifts like yours.

Ciao

Franco

 

[giannis]

1 hour ago, Harpomatic said:

In my review I chose to base the evaluation on more objective parameters, which look at plain optical quality rather than vintage/special rendition. That kind of rendition is even more subjective than the parameters I chose, robbing a review of any broader application for a lens choice.

Yes I noticed, and thanks for the effort you put in it. It's a great service to the community to have objective and verifiable reviews along with the photos as proof, clearly documented, so people can make their own conclusions based on their own priorities. I do believe this kind of writeups are greatly needed and severely lacking in an endless see of über-subjective and pseudo-objective reviews full of sensationalist, unmeasurable descriptions and adjectives more fitting to a wine review than an optical instrument review 

Apologies if that wasn't clear from my first post, your review is greatly appreciated!

And I hope I'm also clear when I mentioned that I don't consider it a good technical lens, but a good people lens, for the reasons described. Maybe I waxed too lyrical about it, but I was just excited this kind of lens exists and at this price, cause it's a look I really enjoy! And I can describe that look objectively too, and the flaws that cause it (like spherical aberrations, field curvature, slight geometric distortion, etc.). If someone doesn't like the look, then obviously it's not for them. But if someone, like me, spent almost as much on promist filters and Softar filters  (along with many sprayed/vaselined UV filters and ripped pantyhoses) to get this particular look, then they're gonna like the lens.

Anyway, the sonnar design is a specialty design. For instance, i couldn't think of anything worse for architecture . But that's obvious cause the Sonnar design has been completely dominated in the market by double gauss (and even more specifically planar and modified planar) designs. Sonnars (and Tessars and Ultrons - the original one for the Voigtlander Brilliant, which is the only other non planar design) are pretty much dead commercially, which is a shame for those among us that like them, and why we get excited when they're re-introduced.

Edited February 25, 2021 by giannis
typos, content

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[duoenboge]

Harpomatic, I expect the same comparison for thr 35mm. When can we expect the report? 😉