Leica vs Nikon vintage lenses

[George Mann]

Are you using your Nikkor 50mm f/2 on a film or digital camera…?

Both.

 

[Huss]

Then my next question is why were you were shooting landscapes at such apertures? BTW, my Nikkor 50mm f2's are a bit soft in the corners wide open, but nothing approaching blurry or smeared. Of course an older f1.4 is bound to be worse.

Late in the day, low light, no tripod.

 

[George Mann]

Late in the day, low light, no tripod.

And here I thought that you were being creative!

 

[snusmumriken]

You don’t say what era you are talking about, but Stewart Bell did technical reviews of current lenses for Amateur Photographer magazine through the 1980s and 90s. I’m pretty sure I recall a comparative review by him of earlier Contax vs Leitz lenses too. You can find back issues of AP on the usual auction site. It used to be possible to buy reprints of these reviews for specific cameras/lenses from Oldtimer Cameras Ltd, but I don’t think they are in business any longer.

Before Stewart Bell’s time, lens reviews in AP were far less technical, with in-camera test shots on film rather than optical bench testing.

 

[Eric Rose]

I have both and almost never shoot wide open. Both lenses are excellent and unless shooting off a tripod will out resolve the camera shake introduced by handheld photography. Each has their own look which might be a better way to evaluate them. Match the "look" to your vision of what you want the final image to portray.

 

[Huss]

I have both and almost never shoot wide open. Both lenses are excellent and unless shooting off a tripod will out resolve the camera shake introduced by handheld photography. Each has their own look which might be a better way to evaluate them. Match the "look" to your vision of what you want the final image to portray.

Pretty much any lens stopped down looks the same.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the early 1970s I had the opportunity to compare about 30 modern lenses for 35mm cameras by projecting a high resolution target negative through the camera lens onto a screen. The tests provided no numerical values for precise comparison, but did provide quick results for practical photography. The best lenses were a Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron, a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, a GN-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 pancake lens, and, for enlargers, an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. The screen was maybe 30 inches from the lens, so the test was probably valid for distant subjects. Several of the unmentioned lenses were nearly as good, and the difference in sharpness would very rarely noticed in almost all practical photography.

 

[Jim Jones]

Pretty much any lens stopped down looks the same.

Stopping down to f/16 or f/22 on the lenses on 35mm or compact digital cameras noticeably degrades the image due to diffraction in the lens. I never even stop down to f/8 unless I am desperate for more depth of field.

 

[Nikon 2]

Stopping down to f/16 or f/22 on the lenses on 35mm or compact digital cameras noticeably degrades the image due to diffraction in the lens. I never even stop down to f/8 unless I am desperate for more depth of field.

Very good point…!

 

[Eric Rose]

Pretty much any lens stopped down looks the same.

Yup. You might as well buy a TTArtisans 50mm.

 

[250swb]

There's two questions to be answered. The first is 'have you missed the point about photography if it's all about the edges of the frame?' Please list great photos let down by soft edges. The second question to be answered is via a selection of anonymous images, 'could you anticipate confidently saying which manufacturers lens took each photograph?' If the answer is 'no' you win the prize, if you think you could choose go back to question one.

 

[Nikon 2]

There's two questions to be answered. The first is 'have you missed the point about photography if it's all about the edges of the frame?' Please list great photos let down by soft edges. The second question to be answered is via a selection of anonymous images, 'could you anticipate confidently saying which manufacturers lens took each photograph?' If the answer is 'no' you win the prize, if you think you could choose go back to question one.

Yes, photography is an art not a competition...!

 

[snusmumriken]

Please list great photos let down by soft edges.

Generally I would say content is everything, but I do find it really distracting if foreground in the two bottom corners is blurry compared with foreground in the bottom centre. Not enough to ruin a great shot, but better if it was otherwise.

 

[etn]

Voigtlander is making very good lenses at a more affordable price than Leica…!

Indeed. I have a 35mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic single coated (version 2) for Leica M. Lovely little lens, supposed to have a "vintage" look. Now, don't ask me how "vintage" is supposed to look like, particularly as I don't have a Summilux or Summicron "king of bokeh" to compare. I really like the results of this lens. I also really like its price tag - maybe a 5th of what one of those venerable 'Crons or 'Luxes go for. Icing on the cake, it takes standard filters.

One of my all-time favorites is also the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 for Nikon F, but that's possibly out of the scope of this thread.

 

[Nikon 2]

Indeed. I have a 35mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic single coated (version 2) for Leica M. Lovely little lens, supposed to have a "vintage" look. Now, don't ask me how "vintage" is supposed to look like, particularly as I don't have a Summilux or Summicron "king of bokeh" to compare. I really like the results of this lens. I also really like its price tag - maybe a 5th of what one of those venerable 'Crons or 'Luxes go for. Icing on the cake, it takes standard filters.

One of my all-time favorites is also the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 for Nikon F, but that's possibly out of the scope of this thread.

View attachment 331326
View attachment 331327
View attachment 331332

As I see it, pun intended, a vintage lens has a character that shows the center of the image very sharp whilst the corners aren’t as crisp.
The “non vintage “ or modern lens might render the entire image too sharp or sterile...!

 

[etn]

As I see it, pun intended, a vintage lens has a character that shows the center of the image very sharp whilst the corners aren’t as crisp.
The “non vintage “ or modern lens might render the entire image too sharp or sterile...!

Agree. The famous "Leica glow" is actually just caused by aberrations, which could not be as well corrected with the technology of the day, compared to today's.

To me, the look comes mainly from the film - particularly in 35mm where the grain is more apparent. I also prefer Tri-X or HP5 to Delta/Tmax for this reason.

 

[snusmumriken]

As I see it, pun intended, a vintage lens has a character that shows the center of the image very sharp whilst the corners aren’t as crisp.

So the 35mm Nokton in post #39 doesn’t in fact have a vintage look, as you define it? The corners in the second photo look pretty crisp.

Surely internal flare was a significant characteristic of vintage lenses?

 

[etn]

So the 35mm Nokton in post #39 doesn’t in fact have a vintage look, as you define it? The corners in the second photo look pretty crisp.

Surely internal flare was a significant characteristic of vintage lenses?

That picture was taken at f/8 or f/11 if I remember correctly... everything should indeed be crisp!

Here is an example with some flare. If I remember correctly it was taken "at or around" f/5.6-f/8 with orange filter on Tri-X.

 

[snusmumriken]

That picture was taken at f/8 or f/11 if I remember correctly... everything should indeed be crisp!

Here is an example with some flare. If I remember correctly it was taken "at or around" f/5.6-f/8 with orange filter on Tri-X.

View attachment 331460

To my inexpert understanding there’s a difference between flare spots as in your image, which are basically multiple ghost images of the lens opening; and veiling flare which affects the contrast and tonal rendition of the whole image. It’s the latter which modern coated lenses have reduced. Photographer James Ravilious famously sought older un-coated lenses to capture natural light effects the way he wanted them.

 

[etn]

To my inexpert understanding there’s a difference between flare spots as in your image, which are basically multiple ghost images of the lens opening; and veiling flare which affects the contrast and tonal rendition of the whole image. It’s the latter which modern coated lenses have reduced. Photographer James Ravilious famously sought older un-coated lenses to capture natural light effects the way he wanted them.

Your understanding is certainly more expert than mine!
I agree with your point of view. Here another example with the same lens where the flare is more visible and along the lines of what you describe. (I just blurred my wife and kid's faces in this pic.)



Thanks for your tip on James Ravilious, I didn't know him. Will look up some of his work.

 

[Nikon 2]

That picture was taken at f/8 or f/11 if I remember correctly... everything should indeed be crisp!

Here is an example with some flare. If I remember correctly it was taken "at or around" f/5.6-f/8 with orange filter on Tri-X.

View attachment 331460

Very high end vintaged Nikon lenses are the exception...!

 

[Nikon 2]

The “vintage lens” characters are the very sharp center of the image whilst the edges are not as crisp, (wide open)...!

 

[Nikon 2]

That picture was taken at f/8 or f/11 if I remember correctly... everything should indeed be crisp!

Here is an example with some flare. If I remember correctly it was taken "at or around" f/5.6-f/8 with orange filter on Tri-X.

View attachment 331460

The vintage look of the vintage lenses are when it is shot wide open...!

 

[Nikon 2]

The vintage look of the vintage lenses are when it is shot wide open...!

Remember the Nikon vintaged lenses I’m talking about are 40-50 years old. Not the ones being manufactured today...!

 

[Nikon 2]

Good answers…!

I like that Nikon makes their own glass...!