KMZ vs Leitz Comparison Shots

[Lamar]

I did some comparison shots to see how my two Leitz lenses stacked up against my Jupiters. The shots are in the linked Flickr album for anyone who is interested. Download original to get the 4000 dpi unaltered scans.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/albums/72157667082845251/with/26180064820/

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a few Jupiter 8 lenses so that's an interesting comparison, however I wonder how they compare to a Summicron which are far better lenses than the Summarit.

Ian

 

[michr]

Maybe the differences would be more obvious on ISO 100 film, but I have a hard time seeing a big distinction between the images. Neither of them look particularly sharp.

 

[blockend]

The Summarit is a pretty basic lens. It has a nice look but couldn't be described as modern by any definition, and I certainly wouldn't pay a Leica premium for the output. The Jupiter 8 also gives a nice image, but flares like crazy if the sun is anywhere in the frame. We're not talking rays, but massive desaturation of the entire image due to internal reflections. I use one with a lens hood, and the difference between the shaded portion and the exposed area of glass is impossible to overstate. Away from sunlight, it's a very good lens. New old stock Jupiters can be had for £20-30, a Summarit is £900.

 

[jimjm]

Here's a Summicron Rigid Type 2 (1961) in very tough lighting conditions. No problems with flare, the shadows are dense and the specular highlights are nice and crisp.

This was shot with an M2 on Tri-X, D-76 1:1. Scan of a straight print, not a bit of burning or dodging needed.

 

[Xmas]

I'd say you got nice bleed over out of high lights myself.

But the J8 were made from '47 or so and you need one in good condition.
The J8 can be compared to the Nikkor HC but the J8 are pretty cheap with an FSU rangefinder.

Comparing a J8 with the 53mm Helious /1.8 is fair as the Helious a double gauss is better off axis.
You need a lens test chart to make an objective comment on IQ?

 

[Lamar]

Second thoughts: I know the Summitar shots are front focused a bit but after looking more closely perhaps it is more front focused than I had originally thought. I focused on the vertical stick and it is obvious that was missed. I thought actual focus was on the front of the basket so I was using that area to compare but the more I look the more I think the focal point was even a bit closer. Thoughts?

 

[Dali]

Thoughts? I don't know but what do you mean by "testing" these lenses?

 

[Lamar]

Not testing, just a comparison. After initially using each of the Leitz lenses I felt the results of their Jupiter counterparts I owned were better. I never tried a direct comparison so this was just to see If my gut feeling was correct and why I would like the Jupiter results a little better.

 

[Dali]

And do you think your lenses are representative, I mean results should be similar taking another Jup-8 and another Summitar?

 

[Xmas]

Lots of people prefer the

J8,
Nikkor HC
Sonnar

Signature

Compared with the double gauss

Summicron
Summitar

Etc.

Or uncoated v single coated v multi coated.

But you can down load a lens test chart and try slow film for objective tests.

Scans obscure the signature as does an enlarger lens.

 

[Lamar]

Well I'm certainly not buying another Summitar or Elmar just to determine if one make is better than the other in some way. Without doing that I really can't say if my Elmar and Summitar are representative. I understand there can be significant variance in samples of the same lens, especially ones that have been around as long as these, but as I said, this was just a comparison to satisfy my curiosity. I do have three Jupiter 8's and I used the one I think is best for this comparison although there is not really much difference in the three. What I have learned from the results is some shooting parameters to avoid, or use. I'm going to do some more comparisons and try to do a little better with my scene set up this time. I need something on the table like a tape measure so I can tell where the focus plane actually is. I also need to make sure I'm squared up next time. Eyeballing it doesn't work.

And do you think your lenses are representative, I mean results should be similar taking another Jup-8 and another Summitar?

 

[Lamar]

I did a little rangefinder checking this morning and found the IIIf I was using for the comparison is focusing about 4-5cm closer than the rangefinder indicates when compared to my IIIc and IIIb. It is the same for both the J-8 and the Summitar so I am assuming any discrepancy between the lenses is negligible and the problem is with the rangefinder on the IIIf. The offset combined with what ever the tolerance is for my far-sight corrected 51 year old Mk I eyeball was most likely the result of the front focused Summitar images in the comparison. Working on figuring out how to adjust a Leica IIIf RF now. I have never had to do it. This IIIf just came back from a CLA as well. I did a quick cursory check on infinity and at a couple of meters when it came back and it appeared to be on but apparently it is just a bit off and at 1m at f/2 it makes a difference.

 

[Lamar]

Am I wrong in assuming the rangefinder calibration on a IIIf is done through the little screw port next to the viewfinder window? I saw this listed and the rangefinder adjustment port in a couple of diagrams I saw on line.

(Image from https://oldcam.wordpress.com/tag/leica-iif/)

 

[Lamar]

Infinity was dead on at first. If I adjust this infinity is no longer correct. I set it back where infinity is dead on on an airplane con-trail and I'm leaving it there. Close focus still appears to be off by 4-5cm. Will this require an adjustment on the roller follower?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have a few Jupiter 8 lenses so that's an interesting comparison, however I wonder how they compare to a Summicron which are far better lenses than the Summarit.

Ian

I've had re-aligned black J-8 and collapsible Cron. I don't bother to scan boring test shots at 4600 dpi. I do 8x10 prints. J-8 is very nice on prints. One of the lenses which is special on prints. Cron is better, for sure, but J-8 is simply the best among cheap, affordable 50mm RF.

 

[Lamar]

From my reading it appears that close focus RF calibration is achieved in an iterative manner by alternately adjusting the infinity focus at the viewfinder and a concentric adjuster on the follower lever until the RF images align at both the 1m and infinity settings. There appears to be a very thin hex nut between the RF follower lever and roller that is the concentric adjustment. I have no tool to fit it so I am stuck for now. I ordered a miniature wrench set so I hope it is thin enough to fit. I can file down if needed I hope. If anyone knows this is not the correct way to set the IIIf RF please advise. Thanks.

 

[Lamar]

I re-shot the comparison due to the focus errors in the first one and the Summitar is looking a bit better now.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/albums/72157667349603785/with/26440023172/

 

[Lamar]

My assessment: I think the Summitar looks a bit sharper in the center especially as you stop down but the J8 looks sharper mid to outer frame. I think on an 8 x 10 print you'd be hard pressed to tell if either was better than the other. I will say that when viewing the full images fit-to-screen on my 23 inch monitor that the J8 produces a noticeably sharper image mid to outer frame at f/2 and f/2.8 and I can't detect any discernible center advantage for the Summitar at those apertures. So at f/2 and f/2.8 I say advantage Jupiter 8. At f/4 and fit-to-screen I start seeing a slight advantage in the center for the Summitar and this continues through f/8 with the J8 still just a tad better in the outer frame at those smaller apertures.

 

[Xmas]

The Jupiter should be comparable on axis at most apertures but softer off axis especially at wider apertures.
If you want to compare them you may need to check the rangefinder accuracy for Jupiter and Summitar on film independently.
The lenses normally need shimming to get the rangefinder datum surface movement correct for the lenses actual focal length.
Some people calibrate the rangefinder at 2m and 10m on the grounds that the infinity and 1m errors are less frequent.
But you need a reference lens focusing mount.
For a long time Leitz marked the focusing mechanism for the focal length of the lens it was to be paired with, and the lens optics similarly.