After my little 24mm challenge, here I am with one more test, this time with 50mm.
The contenders are the CY Zeiss planar T* 50mm f/1.4, the Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and the Tamron 28-75mm @ 50mm.
Hope you like it. Originnaly I intended to include the OM zuiko 55mm f/1.2 on this test, but unfortunately it failed to reach infinity focus for some reason.
I'm working on a bokeh test too, witch I find more interesting to judge a lens rendering rather then simple sharpness tests like this one. In this case I may include the zuiko 55mm.
I'm struggling to find a good scene for this test, if you have any idea please spread the word.
Are you being careful to focus on the exact same point in every test? These images show a significant difference in distance from nearest to most distant comparison points so focusing in the exact same place will be critical. Fore example, I don't think it would be rasonable to simply focus on infinity on each lens because of adapter issues etc. Using Live View to focus at the exact same point would be the best way, IMHO.
Yes, I used liveview to focus on the windows you can see on the center crop. I may do some other sharpness test with a different scene though, if someone has an idea of a better type of scene for this please share.
Interesting, I was expecting the Summicron to be better at f2 than it was, although its performance was definitely quite acceptable. But not enough to justify over the generally cheaper Planar which looks better at pretty much every aperture. Love to see how a Summilux stands up. The Summicron certainly does deliver a good performance though.
The Tamron is sadly outclassed here, unlike the last test.
I'd like to see a similar test with a closer subject and including another 50/1.4 like the Canon or Sigma... I rarely shoot anything at infinity with my 50 primes. This type of test may require separate shots for the center sharpness and edge sharpness.
This looks like typical performance from the C/Y 50/1.4; "dream-glow" wide open, very sharp from f/2.8, and best at f/5.6.
I expected the Leica to be a bit better than it is, but I would probably buy it only for its bokeh characteristics or overall feel for non-infinity shots. I'm not overly impressed with the Contax's bokeh.
Thanks for this. Interesting, and a well done test judging by the very good performance from all the lenses, and the predictable changes of performance with aperture. Interesting that at f5.6 and others the Leica has an even bluer rendering than the Zeiss. I consider that a good thing, although the Zeiss seems like a sharper lens overall. A bokeh comparison will also be interesting if you can find the strength to do one.
And here are three quick bokeh shots I've made this afternoon at the park. I've include the zuiko 55mm f/1.2 on this one.
This time I didn't used tripod, I don't think it's necessary to this kind of test, so please ignore the minor framing differences.
Fascinating. Note how all lenses have good 3D effect except the Leica, which has, quite simply, none at all. It is the flattest, dullest, most lifeless, lens of them all, in terms of 3D. I suppose you can try to inject 3D effect with a combination of contrast and sharpening manipulations, but in my experience its pictures will never really come alive.
brainiac wrote:
Fascinating. Note how all lenses have good 3D effect except the Leica, which has, quite simply, none at all. It is the flattest, dullest, most lifeless, lens of them all, in terms of 3D. I suppose you can try to inject 3D effect with a combination of contrast and sharpening manipulations, but in my experience its pictures will never really come alive.
That's funny. I was going to remark how they actually all look pretty similar. The CY is a hair sharper in some of the segments, and the Summicron a hair sharper in some of the others. Bokeh looks about the same - minor variations, but for the most part, they all look pretty good though they all display some jerkiness in some of the shots.
The Summicron seems a hair cooler, but not enough to make a difference. The most noticeable difference in all the lenses was the warmth of the Tamron. Well, that and maximum aperture.
brainiac wrote:
Fascinating. Note how all lenses have good 3D effect except the Leica, which has, quite simply, none at all. It is the flattest, dullest, most lifeless, lens of them all, in terms of 3D. I suppose you can try to inject 3D effect with a combination of contrast and sharpening manipulations, but in my experience its pictures will never really come alive.
This is really evident with the last test subject...
The CZ 50mm seems to be the lens to get and the OM 55mm f1.2 is a very good reasonably priced alternative... which really isn't surprising. As pointed out above, that Leica is lifeless in comparison to the OM & CZ - something I wouldn't have expected.
pascal03 wrote:
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
The CZ 50mm seems to be the lens to get and the OM 55mm f1.2 is a very good reasonably priced alternative... which really isn't surprising. As pointed out above, that Leica is lifeless in comparison to the OM & CZ - something I wouldn't have expected.
It's something that I do expect, because all the Leica lenses I have owned have exhibited this quality. It seems as though Leica actually designs them that way. Or maybe it's a by-product of the quest for creamy bokeh. Whatever it is, once you have noticed that a lack of 3D effect is perfectly apparent in images as small as the ones we are comparing here, it's hard to overlook.
I think it shows very clearly in the f4 shots with the purple flower in the foreground. I keep trying to think that's it's just a missed focus or something, but the more I look at it the more obvious it becomes that this lens just makes objects and spaces look flat. For me it makes the image very boring, because the illusion is really missing a vital ingredient - a significant part of the feeling of being there.
I know it's contrary of me to criticise Leica's unimpeachable glass, but I do find it difficult to share in the excitement when people post pictures showing exquisite lens performance in every respect, but no presence at all.
I was curious to see your reactions and you gave some interesting feedback.
For me the zeiss seems the more well-balanced lens in terms of sharpness and bokeh.
It was a surprise for me when I compared the images at f/2 and have seen little differences in terms of bokeh quality. I've allways find the bokeh of the zeiss very ugly but I think it was because I was using it at f/1.4 most of the time. At f/2 and further the zeiss shows a better bokeh or maybe the leica doesn't have a smoother bokeh like I was expecting (if not what 50mm will have it??).
The zeiss seems to pull out more detail than the leica and renders well defined details. The leica seems to have the famous "leica glow" that gives some character to the image but requires more contrast in PP to get more punchy.
Here are a bigger comparison at f/2 with some fast PP applied (the same PP for the two) since I was wandering how they reacted to some adjustments.
Leica on the left and Zeiss on the right: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5248/leicazeiss.jpg
Before I make a decision on witch to keep I want to make some real life tests though, make photos that I like and with my style with both of them and see which one gives me a image that I find more pleasent.
Which 50 summicron is this? The serial number indicates it's an early, approx 1978, version of the current cron which was introduced in 1976. Does it have the built in lens hood with 55mm?
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
I was curious to see your reactions and you gave some interesting feedback.
For me the zeiss seems the more well-balanced lens in terms of sharpness and bokeh.
It was a surprise for me when I compared the images at f/2 and have seen little differences in terms of bokeh quality. I've allways find the bokeh of the zeiss very ugly but I think it was because I was using it at f/1.4 most of the time. At f/2 and further the zeiss shows a better bokeh or maybe the leica doesn't have a smoother bokeh like I was expecting (if not what 50mm will have it??).
The zeiss seems to pull out more detail than the leica and renders well defined details. The leica seems to have the famous "leica glow" that gives some character to the image but requires more contrast in PP to get more punchy.
Here are a bigger comparison at f/2 with some fast PP applied (the same PP for the two) since I was wandering how they reacted to some adjustments.
Leica on the left and Zeiss on the right: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5248/leicazeiss.jpg
Before I make a decision on witch to keep I want to make some real life tests though, make photos that I like and with my style with both of them and see which one gives me a image that I find more pleasent....Show more →
