selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I bought the 50 year old Summicron (manual focus) in 2015 for $1,150. A new one today, probably slightly better, would cost between $2,695 and $9,195.

I also bought the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G new for $246. It's not going to last another 55 years but neither will I. If it breaks its replacement will be just as good.

I could have taken the trouble of using both lenses on the same camera but it probably would not have made much difference. I used an A7 II for the Leica and a D610 for the Nikon. Both 24MP images were captured within a minute of each other (the Nikon was still on EST).

Both images were taken at ISO 400 1/1000 @ f/11. The shots I captured are in the next post. I had to run them through Capture One to equalize the overall brightness (the Nikon was slightly darker) and I use Capture One's Daylight WB. Any residual difference in color is probably due to differences in the cameras.

You can do a deep dive into the details but what really matters is how well they perform. I wanted to compare was the sharpness and look for any visible aberrations.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The good news for Nikon is that it looks as good as the Leica.

But the Leica lens was that good 55 years age.

Summicron

(Download)

Nikon

(Download)

CWS Loc: El Paso, TX

Thanks Scotty for posting the comparison. I enjoy seeing comparisons and photos using legacy glass. I think both these lenses show good sharpness with the Nikon having a slight bit more saturation but that could have been due to the cameras used or in processing.

BebuLamar

So you will have to find a 55 year old Nikkor 50mm f/2 to make the comparison and a 50mm Nikkor can't be mounted on the D610 so you can mount both the Leica and Nikkor on the Sony.

BebuLamar

So you will have to find a 55 year old Nikkor 50mm f/2 to make the comparison and a 50mm Nikkor can't be mounted on the D610 so you can mount both the Leica and Nikkor on the Sony.

dmsM43

I once owned a 50mm f2 Summicron, it came with a 1959 Leica IIIg that I bought used for $200 in the early 1970's. I tested my lenses in those days on film using the test kit sold by "Modern Photography". The Summicron had by far the highest resolution of any of the lenses I had available to test. I recall that it peaked at f2.8, so there was no reason to stop it down any further except for depth of field. It did have very low contrast compared to the Japanese lenses that I tested; which included a Nikon rangefinder 50mm f1.4 and a Canon rangefinder 50mm f1.4. I don't recall if my Summicron had any coatings on it's glass, which may have accounted for the low contrast. I know when printing 8x10's, my Nikon 50mm f1.4 and Canon 50mm f1.4 lenses looked sharper, but the Leica lens really stood out when making larger prints such as 20x24's. Alas, I sold it and the camera years ago for $450, and put the money into a 4x5. The nearest thing I could find to it in terms of resolution was the Canon FD 50mm f1.2 L when stopped down to f2. I still have that lens, but looking back, I wish I had kept the Summicron. I wonder how it would look on my Sony A7r, the Canon looks amazing on it.

Retrobug

Interesting comparison. Maybe it's just me, but it looks like - while both lenses are very sharp - the Summicron faintly edges out the Nikon. Looking at the foreground grass, downloaded, magnified.

I use a manual focus era lens on my DSLR, and see small color balance and exposure issues come up that don't come up with dedicated modern lenses. Particularly with exposure, if I use the camera meter and shoot manual, I have to compensate by 1/3 or 2/3 stop to get the exposure right.

I wonder what would happen if you added 1/3 stop to the Nikon when using the Summicron. For a landscape (which stays put and gives you plenty of time to shoot) I wonder if that Summicron might not become a go-to lens? Seems a fantastic piece of glass.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Although both cameras were set to Daylight WB the JPEG SOOC from the D610 was a little bit darker and more red or magenta.

I tried to equalize this in Capture One but there is a tiny difference in color looking through the lenses themselves. Anyone looking for just the right color balance can easily reach the end point with either lens or camera.

Here are the two images SOOC:

Leica on A7 II

(Download)

Nikon on D610

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I'd rather do the comparison with a 2015 Summicron if I can find one. Would you like to make a donation?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Both of these lenses are too good for film.

What surprises me is that the Leica lens is so good despite having had no high resolution digital sensor to test it on. And it may have been designed the old fashioned way, with very little help from computers.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I have looked at the images and many others at up to 400% and agree that the Summicron might have a tiny edge in sharpness.

Another difference is that the Nikon appears to have a slightly wider field of view so they are not both exactly 50mm.

And although I normally use f/11 for landscape, there are some differences when you open the lens wide, which I never do for landscapes.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It is not my intention to start a war on which one is better. From what I see here and I understand a better comparison would be making something like a 20x30 inch enlargement, both lenses perform very well.
I have never been a Leica fan. Years ago and when I was much younger I preferred a Contax with Zeiss lenses to a Leica. I used a Leica rangefinder from the 50's but I never got to the point of enjoying it. Why their cameras and lenses are so expensive is beyond me.

When Japanese cameras made their way I remember the Nikon SP of around 1957, a camera that all of a sudden was a favorite of photo journalists. Yes, the lenses had better contrast than Leica lenses from that time. Nikon lenses were sharp enough for the job and during the Korean War the late David Douglas Duncan working for Life Magazine was assigned to shooting the war and was met in Japan by a colleague, Jun Miki, a young Japanese photographer also working for Life who introduce Nikon lenses to Mr. Duncan. A couple of those lenses made it to Korea and the images were published by Life. It was not till Mr. Duncan returned to the USA that the Life editors learned the images were not from Leica lenses. Shortly thereafter Life bought Nikon cameras and lenses for their photographers.

Another Japanese company that makes excellent optics is Olympus. When I visited Japan in the early 70's Japanese talked enthusiastically about those optics. I am not saying Nikon and Olympus are better than Leica but I have been very satisfied with both companies and to me that is what counts. Just my opinion.

BebuLamar

Well if I could afford Leica lenses I would own Leica cameras. Although I don't like rangefinder as much as SLR the Leica M's are so nice and the prices are high but affordable for me. I just can't afford to buy the lenses.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

True. That lens was designed in Canada before there was a computer that would have been of much use. I can’t remember exactly where. Somewhere in Ontario between Toronto and Detroit. Perhaps someone could remind me before I waste a lot of time trying to remember where. Who am I kidding? What else can I do?

I still admire the care with which those lenses were assembled. The surface of the focusing cam showed scrape marks where it was hand tuned. It delivered an image quality superior to any camera I had used in the film era.

agillot

it would have been interesting if you had added a third lens to the test , like a cheap one that come with a entry level kit camera , like a nikon d 3500 or other brand .it will be a 18 / 55 zoom most likely , just set it a 50 mm .