Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
1965 50mm f/2 Summicron vs. a 2015 Nikon 50mm f/1.8G
Apr 25, 2020 09:56:55 #
Jack 13088 wrote:
If you want to join the Leica M series cult. You might be interested in this link. Complements of Google search “Leica in Canada”.
http://wild-traverse.com/blog/2017/11/30/a-little-bit-of-mojo-leica-made-in-canada-lenses
http://wild-traverse.com/blog/2017/11/30/a-little-bit-of-mojo-leica-made-in-canada-lenses
As with Nikon, the parent company is responsible for the ultimate quality control since it's their reputation that is at stake. Nikons are made in several countries but only a handful of expensive low volume models like the Df are still made in Japan.
It's likely that the lenses and bodies that were made in Canada were every bit as good as the contemporary ones made in Germany. However, Leica designed some camera models that were better than others. The fact that some of the less successful models were made at the same time that Leica was in Canada is probably just a coincidence.
Ultimately, low volume and high prices did not justify staying in Canada. But many of the higher volume designs with a Leica label (sometimes lenses on bodies with a non-Leica label) are made outside of Germany. The used market can be based on caprice more often than on reason.
Apr 25, 2020 10:11:13 #
selmslie wrote:
... So the Nikon's advantage may actually be a beneficial defect.
Besides the slight mis-match in actual focal length (Leica is very careful with this), another difference between the two lenses may be hard to see in this pair or images.
Relative to the Summicron, the Nikon appears to have a tiny bit of barrel distortion. We can't confirm which one is actually "wrong" with this outdoor scene. We would need to be looking at architecture.
Apr 25, 2020 10:17:26 #
BebuLamar wrote:
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.
Wouldn’t any 55 year Nikkor still be an F-Mount usable on the D610??
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Apr 25, 2020 10:50:37 #
rehess wrote:
Wouldn’t any 55 year Nikkor still be an F-Mount usable on the D610??
You would probably have to modify it first (remove the meter tab).
Apr 25, 2020 11:08:21 #
selmslie wrote:
You would probably have to modify it first (remove the meter tab).
I keep forgetting that Nikon compatibility is not quite as simple as it is portrayed at times.
I got several 'converters', one for each lens, which allow me to use Takumars of the same vintage on my modern Pentax cameras as they are - but the lenses are not nearly as expensive.
Apr 25, 2020 11:19:46 #
rehess wrote:
Wouldn’t any 55 year Nikkor still be an F-Mount usable on the D610??
No 55 years old means made before 1977 and thus it's pre AI and is not recommended by Nikon to be used on the D610.
Apr 25, 2020 11:21:43 #
rehess wrote:
I keep forgetting that Nikon compatibility is not quite as simple as it is portrayed at times.
I got several 'converters', one for each lens, which allow me to use Takumars of the same vintage on my modern Pentax cameras as they are - but the lenses are not nearly as expensive.
I got several 'converters', one for each lens, which allow me to use Takumars of the same vintage on my modern Pentax cameras as they are - but the lenses are not nearly as expensive.
But remember Pentax switched lens mount around 1975. Nikon switched to AI in 1977. So.
Apr 25, 2020 11:26:42 #
BebuLamar wrote:
No 55 years old means made before 1977 and thus it's pre AI and is not recommended by Nikon to be used on the D610.
My Takumar 50mm was made 1964-66, so I figured it was built around the same time.
Not as expensive in any case and still requires manual focusing which I don't enjoy.
Apr 25, 2020 11:31:58 #
Here is another test with similar results.
I compared a 2013 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss M ($1,087) to a 2016 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD Tamron ($600) which is an extremely sharp lens and got a similar result. Across the middle from left to right they look to be equally sharp. But the Tamron may show a little more chromatic aberration that the Zeiss (easily corrected in post).
But in the corners the Zeiss is not as sharp as the Tamron.
I compared a 2013 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss M ($1,087) to a 2016 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD Tamron ($600) which is an extremely sharp lens and got a similar result. Across the middle from left to right they look to be equally sharp. But the Tamron may show a little more chromatic aberration that the Zeiss (easily corrected in post).
But in the corners the Zeiss is not as sharp as the Tamron.
Apr 25, 2020 12:06:29 #
rehess wrote:
My Takumar 50mm was made 1964-66, so I figured it was built around the same time.
Not as expensive in any case and still requires manual focusing which I don't enjoy.
Not as expensive in any case and still requires manual focusing which I don't enjoy.
But you need an adapter with a lens element to use it on your current Pentax.
Apr 25, 2020 12:11:23 #
BebuLamar wrote:
But you need an adapter with a lens element to use it on your current Pentax.
No lens element - the K-mount has exactly the same flange distance as the M42-mount did.
The official adapter is a simple ring - see bottom of photo below.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Apr 25, 2020 14:43:16 #
selmslie wrote:
I came up with a possible explanation.
The armillary and the nearby grass should actually be a little out of focus because they are relatively close to the camera.
But the Summicron may project a flatter image onto the sensor than the Nikon when focused at infinity. So the Nikon's advantage may actually be a beneficial defect.
The armillary and the nearby grass should actually be a little out of focus because they are relatively close to the camera.
But the Summicron may project a flatter image onto the sensor than the Nikon when focused at infinity. So the Nikon's advantage may actually be a beneficial defect.
IIRC it is KR who sometimes points out that many Canon lenses look inferior when tested on charts or brick walls due to an intentional amount of curvature of field built in to improve real world results.
BTW in your recent same-body comparison it looks to me that the Leica lens has a touch of hot spotting compared to the Nikon. Not surprising since the SLR lens projects from a further distance than the RF lens.
Apr 25, 2020 14:53:49 #
rehess wrote:
No lens element - the K-mount has exactly the same flange distance as the M42-mount did.
The official adapter is a simple ring - see bottom of photo below.
The official adapter is a simple ring - see bottom of photo below.
It works perfectly as long as you accept it’s annoying protocol.
No point in equipping each M42 lens with its own ring. The ring does not convert M42 lenses to K-mount. It converts K-mount bodies to M42.
IOW it’s quite impractical if you intend to tote a mixed bag of K and M42 lenses. It’s intended that you are using only M42 lenses.
The ring latches itself into the K body flange and needs a small tool to unlatch it.
Apr 25, 2020 15:06:13 #
User ID wrote:
IIRC it is KR who sometimes points out that many Canon lenses look inferior when tested on charts or brick walls due to an intentional amount of curvature of field built in to improve real world results.
BTW in your recent same-body comparison it looks to me that the Leica lens has a touch of hot spotting compared to the Nikon. Not surprising since the SLR lens projects from a further distance than the RF lens.
BTW in your recent same-body comparison it looks to me that the Leica lens has a touch of hot spotting compared to the Nikon. Not surprising since the SLR lens projects from a further distance than the RF lens.
If what you mean by "hot spotting" is the flip side of vignette then it could be getting close to the truth. Vignette is relatively easy to fix or to compensate for in the software. But it is more apparent wide open than at f/11.
The flange to sensor distance may be the answer. The adapter moves the lens away from the sensor to where the SLR lens expects it to be. But a lens designed for a camera with no mirror is deliberately closer to the sensor and that has to result in some geometric challenges.
I have only one more pair of lenses whose focal lengths match, a 28mm Nikon AIS and a 28mm Zeiss M. I will try them tomorrow.
Apr 25, 2020 15:23:56 #
selmslie wrote:
.................
I have only one more pair of lenses whose focal lengths match, a 28mm Nikon AIS and a 28mm Zeiss M. I will try them tomorrow.
.................
I have only one more pair of lenses whose focal lengths match, a 28mm Nikon AIS and a 28mm Zeiss M. I will try them tomorrow.
Recently did some casual messing around with a Leica mount 28/3.5 Nikkor on a Sony a7-iii.
There was NO need for any careful comparisons to an SLR type 28. The little nearly pancake RF lens has such severe fall-off that it’s best reserved for a special effects lens similar to a Lomo but sharper.
All of which is to say that it fully met expectations. You just look at it before attaching it and you already KNOW the result.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.