Leica Summilux 50 R vs Zeiss MakroPlanar 50 vs Nikon 50 1.8G on film

[Huss]

Because digital has not been invented yet, I decided to compare my Summilux 50 R (2nd gen - the one before the E60) to my Zeiss Makro Planar 50 and Nikon 50 1.8G. On my lunch break (I swear) on the same roll of Kentmere 400, developed in Cinestill DF96.

I first loaded a Nikon F6 for the Zeiss and Nikon lens shots, then rewound and reloaded that film into a Leica R9 for the Summilux shots.
The lenses were at max aperture - so 1.4 for the Leica, 1.8 for the Nikon and 2.0 for the Zeiss.

After I developed the roll I realized I also had a Nikon 50 1.4D and Sigma Art 50 in my dry box! Darn it - I had plenty of shots left on that roll too! Le sigh...

Anyway, the Nikon 50 1.8G had the benefit of AF, yet still was softer at max than the other two. Stopped down a bit I'm pretty sure all these lenses would look the same.
The Leica was super impressive in being as sharp if not sharper than the other two at 1.4! Also this shows how awesome the focus screen is in the R9 - it does not have focus confirmation leds or AF that the Nikon F6 has. But the F6 was super easy to focus manually too w/o needing the confirmation led- and you can see the Zeiss did better than the 1.8G. Then again it was at 2.0 not 1.8.

Take away? Well, results = price points. Which in a way is a relief.

Nikon 50 1.8G @ 1.8



100%:



Zeiss 50 MakroPlanar @ 2.0:



100%:




Leica Summilux 50 1.4 @ 1.4:




100%:

 

[Paul Howell]

I recall a test done by Shutterbug, The Nikon 50 1.4, Zeiss 1.4 and Sigma 1.4, the Sigma was the sharpest, this the older version not the Art version. I have the same older Sigma 1.4 in Sigma SA mount, it is tack sharp from 1.4 stopped all the way down. Wonder how it stack up to the Leica? Oh, year, the Shutterbug test was digital.

 

[Moose22]

Thanks for sharing.

Almost guarantee if you shoot that Summilux at f/2 it'll be sharp even at an edge. By 2.8 for certain. Really a great lens.

The 1.8G is ... ok. I'm a bigger fan of the 1.8-D Nikon 50s because you can get them for $75 and they're the best bang for the buck in normal lenses. I can also use them on older bodies with the aperture ring. I tend to shoot a 1.4 AF-s on Nikon which is darned good at f/2 or especially 2.8. You have to pay a good deal more to get better, though better does exist in F mount. Voigtlander has a MF 50 40 that is spectacularly sharp at f/2.

I'm impressed by the Zeiss. Really good wide open, but it's not that much cheaper than a Summilux, is it? And the Leica is mightily impressive at 1.4 here. Not picking on your test, but I'm curious now how the sharpness and contrast change when that Summilux gets to f/2.

And I like your model. Give him an ear scratch for us, he did a good job.

 

[Huss]

..

And I like your model. Give him an ear scratch for us, he did a good job.

He normally has a big smile, but now is annoyed at me taking his pic unless it is on a walk!

 

[Huss]

I recall a test done by Shutterbug, The Nikon 50 1.4, Zeiss 1.4 and Sigma 1.4, the Sigma was the sharpest, this the older version not the Art version. I have the same older Sigma 1.4 in Sigma SA mount, it is tack sharp from 1.4 stopped all the way down. Wonder how it stack up to the Leica? Oh, year, the Shutterbug test was digital.

Darn it, I forgot I also have the Zeiss 50 1.4!!! My test $ucked! Ok, round two I'll pull out the Zeiss 50 1.4, the Nikon 50 1.4D and the Sigma Art 50.

The thing about the Zeiss 1.4 is that while it may not be the sharpest wide open, there is just something about the images in regular use that just look so good. I guess that is what you kids call 'rendering'. It's also more pleasant to use than the MakroPlanar as it is smaller and has a lighter and shorter focus throw.

 

[Huss]

Found one with the Nikon 50 1.4D @ 1.4. In actual usage the grain peeping is irrelevant.




And here is one with the Zeiss 50 1.4 ZF.2 @ 1.4. Maybe not the sharpest at 1.4, but it just looks so right to me.

 

[Paul Howell]

If for some odd reason I decided that I needed to shoot a technical project, on film, where detail and resolution mattered I would give a nod the Sigma Art 50 1.4, otherwise the Zeiss has a nice look. In the world of bargain 50mm, I think the Pentax M42 Super Tac 1.4 with the thorium element is the sharpest 1.4 I have followed by the Konica 50 1.4, then Miranda 1.4 in EE mount, sharper than those is the Konica 57 1.7. In day to day use all lens mentioned can resolve Tmax 100 at 200LPMM and Ektar. I did test all of my 50s, with the last of the Microfiche film, using a high school quality microscope and AF test chart, the Konica 1.7 was the sharpest at over 300LPMM. Just about every lens I tested, Yashicha 50mm M42, Pentax 2.0 and 1.4, Minolta MD 1.7, Sigma 50 1.4 (Non Art) in SA mount all resolved Tmax 100. Surprising is how well Petri, Kowa and Miranda did.

 

[Moose22]

I definitely don't do grain peeping. Especially with a consumer 400 speed film. And especially with my shaky-ass, can't remember what the meter said photography style. In fact, when I send a photo to someone and they say "wow, that's sharp!" I pretty much think it failed to convey whatever I meant to convey.

And there is a touch more to all of this than sharpness or resolution. I wouldn't mind seeing some Zeiss samples of the 1.4, just because.

But, as someone who occasionally shoots musicians in marginal conditions and can often really use an extra stop, I am quite impressed when something looks beautiful at f/2 or wider. And if you can get a tack sharp center wide open like that Zeiss above, you've made a good lens.

@Paul Howell Since you mentioned the Art 50 I looked it up. A lot of the new shmancy glass doesn't work on older cameras, what with electronic apertures and all, but I guess this one will work on the F6! Good to know I could use one on my F6 or F100, though nobody is paying me to get their stage shots on film these days so I'm probably not in need of ANOTHER 50 1.4 for the SLR.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't have the Art 1.4, mine is the pervious generation, I have used on my Sigma Film and Digital cameras, I looked into getting an Art but as you noted it will not work on my older Minolta bodies, might work on the Minolta 7. Just way too expensive, my current gaggle of 1.4 will resolve Tmax 100.

 

[ic-racer]

I don’t think I have any lens that isn’t acceptably sharp in the center, but some (actually many) of my images require the far corners to match the center resolution.
I’m interested in your impressions about the corners of this nice group of lenses.

 

[film_man]

You forgot to test the 58/1.4G which you have at the bottom drawer.

I've been looking for a 50 Lux for my M but somehow I keep ending up looking at R8/9 listing. That and a 50/1.4R E55 is probably more usable than a 50 Lux on the M and cheaper too...

 

[bdial]

My experience with the Macro Planar was that it had soft corners compared to the Nikon lenses I compared it with. (55 macro and 60 macro). Both with close work and pictorial distances.

 

[mmerig]

Because digital has not been invented yet, I decided to compare my Summilux 50 R (2nd gen - the one before the E60) to my Zeiss Makro Planar 50 and Nikon 50 1.8G. On my lunch break (I swear) on the same roll of Kentmere 400, developed in Cinestill DF96.

I first loaded a Nikon F6 for the Zeiss and Nikon lens shots, then rewound and reloaded that film into a Leica R9 for the Summilux shots.
The lenses were at max aperture - so 1.4 for the Leica, 1.8 for the Nikon and 2.0 for the Zeiss.

After I developed the roll I realized I also had a Nikon 50 1.4D and Sigma Art 50 in my dry box! Darn it - I had plenty of shots left on that roll too! Le sigh...

Anyway, the Nikon 50 1.8G had the benefit of AF, yet still was softer at max than the other two. Stopped down a bit I'm pretty sure all these lenses would look the same.
The Leica was super impressive in being as sharp if not sharper than the other two at 1.4! Also this shows how awesome the focus screen is in the R9 - it does not have focus confirmation leds or AF that the Nikon F6 has. But the F6 was super easy to focus manually too w/o needing the confirmation led- and you can see the Zeiss did better than the 1.8G. Then again it was at 2.0 not 1.8.

Take away? Well, results = price points. Which in a way is a relief.

Nikon 50 1.8G @ 1.8



100%:



Zeiss 50 MakroPlanar @ 2.0:



100%:




Leica Summilux 50 1.4 @ 1.4:




100%:

Because digital has not been invented yet, I decided to compare my Summilux 50 R (2nd gen - the one before the E60) to my Zeiss Makro Planar 50 and Nikon 50 1.8G. On my lunch break (I swear) on the same roll of Kentmere 400, developed in Cinestill DF96.

I first loaded a Nikon F6 for the Zeiss and Nikon lens shots, then rewound and reloaded that film into a Leica R9 for the Summilux shots.
The lenses were at max aperture - so 1.4 for the Leica, 1.8 for the Nikon and 2.0 for the Zeiss.

After I developed the roll I realized I also had a Nikon 50 1.4D and Sigma Art 50 in my dry box! Darn it - I had plenty of shots left on that roll too! Le sigh...

Anyway, the Nikon 50 1.8G had the benefit of AF, yet still was softer at max than the other two. Stopped down a bit I'm pretty sure all these lenses would look the same.
The Leica was super impressive in being as sharp if not sharper than the other two at 1.4! Also this shows how awesome the focus screen is in the R9 - it does not have focus confirmation leds or AF that the Nikon F6 has. But the F6 was super easy to focus manually too w/o needing the confirmation led- and you can see the Zeiss did better than the 1.8G. Then again it was at 2.0 not 1.8.

Take away? Well, results = price points. Which in a way is a relief.

Nikon 50 1.8G @ 1.8



100%:



Zeiss 50 MakroPlanar @ 2.0:



100%:




Leica Summilux 50 1.4 @ 1.4:




100%:

I wonder how useful this test is given the unknown influence of a moving dog. Also, did you use a tripod?

 

[Huss]

I wonder how useful this test is given the unknown influence of a moving dog. Also, did you use a tripod?

The dog held the tripod as I moved around.

 

[Huss]

My experience with the Macro Planar was that it had soft corners compared to the Nikon lenses I compared it with. (55 macro and 60 macro). Both with close work and pictorial distances.

My experience is the opposite, also having the 55 macro, the 60 2.8D and the 60 2.8G. The Zeiss is sharp corner to corner. Close and pictorial as shown below.

 

[Huss]

And this one from the Zeiss MacroPlanar just because it was such a nice day in Sausalito.

 

[Huss]

This was with the Summilux 50 R @ 1.4 using Lomo Fantome 8 film

 

[250swb]

I have a good number of Leica and Nikon 50mm lenses, and the datum points would be the 50mm Summicron and 50mm Summilux, but to be honest I think my my 50mm Nikkor f/1.8 pancake lens is as sharp at like for like apertures. I wouldn't replace my favourite 50mm Summilux because sharpness is only one part of the equation, and I've never used it with colour film, but with the simplest comparison possible you don't need to pay a lot just to be sharp.

 

[Huss]

I have a good number of Leica and Nikon 50mm lenses, and the datum points would be the 50mm Summicron and 50mm Summilux, but to be honest I think my my 50mm Nikkor f/1.8 pancake lens is as sharp at like for like apertures. I wouldn't replace my favourite 50mm Summilux because sharpness is only one part of the equation, and I've never used it with colour film, but with the simplest comparison possible you don't need to pay a lot just to be sharp.

Once stopped down any differences go pooof..

 

[Paul Howell]

I cannot imagine that any of the lens will not resolve Tmax100 or Ektar, you might see a difference with a micro film. The differences will be in the corners. How a lens captures color contrast, and boka will be the deciding factors.

 

[gone]

The Leica lens has better bokeh, no surprise there. I'd use that if you shoot close ups, portraits, etc. If price isn't a concern, my philosophy is to always go w/ the Leica lens.

 

[Moose22]

my philosophy is to always go w/ the Leica lens.

While I don't disagree, I also don't shoot portraits with a 50 much.

That said, a nice background is a nice background, even if you're just isolating a subject or shooting wide open because of modest light. Bokeh and contrast are the subtle things that make a difference most people won't understand, even though they see it.