My own comments (!) are green. I publish only texts from authors that gave an explicit permission to do so. There have been a (generally negative) thread about this test in the rec.photo.equipment.35mm newsgroup. Refer to Google and search "Leica vs. Nikon lenses new paper" in the subject.
JCB
I looked at your samples with interest... BTW, I think you may be surprised by using the Nikkor MF AI/AIS 35mm f2 and AI/AIS 50mm (large metal-barrel version) lenses instead of the AF versions - in both cases the wide-open performance is better, and the f4 performance may also be a bit better...
(There is a Nikkor evaluation list on my web page, under "I babble"...)
David Ruether
rpn1 @ cornell.edu
Congratulations, you've rendered us all a tremendous service. Many years ago, 1975-ish, I carried out a somewhat similar test between my 3 Minolta lenses and 3 independents. Again hand held and b&w film; and I took photos of different subjects on each frame of a 36 exposure film. All negs. were printed to 25 x 20cm and placed before a photo colleague who was asked to sort them into two piles. He placed one independent in the Minolta pile. All other placings were "correct". I sold my independents and my friend bought Minolta a short time later! Similar tests between Minolta and Canon did not show the same differences except under very high contrast, over-exposed, artificial street light conditions. The Canon coating was clearly "cleaner" than Minolta and gave much lower ghost images..
I feel that there is far too much very fine nit picking over the very finest points of a lens' performance. Most of the time, what really matters is what the good average, and knowledgeable user gets routinely in the field or wherever he or she uses their equipment.
I currently use Canon EOS for my hobby photos, and I found it quite a culture shock to move there after nearly 30 years of Minolta SRTs & X700s, but Minolta didn't feel that my loyalty to them was worth anything so I felt free to have a change when my eyesight demanded AF. All my Minolta lenses were fairly wide aperture and used essentially in aperture priority giving me good separation between subject and background. Canon put the P for program mode adjacent to the on/off switch on 3 of my cameras and being a little bit lazy, I too often settle for shooting in P mode with good depth of field but little separation! I've now got several wide aperture Canon lenses and things have improved.
Best Wishes
Malcolm Stewart Milton Keynes, UK.
Jean-Claude, I enjoyed your "Leica vs Nikon" images, but actually, I would've preferred the Nikon glass, myself! Here's why:
Particularly with the 35mm comparison, the Leica lens clearly has inconsistent sharpness from center to edge, whereas the Nikon is far more consistent.
In the 50mm images, the Leica shadow detail looks very muddy to me, whereas the Nikon has good definition. As the Nikon glass always seems a little soft, I'd suspect a slight misalignment in the Nikon camera body, either in the autofocus, or the viewscreen height. (JCB : Another test, yet to be published, made with conventional methods showed it is not the case.)
Pleasing out-of-focus rendition: I can't really make that judgement from these photos, which are low in contrast. My experience has been that some lenses are not espeicially sharp, but they have a very pleasing, smooth consistency throughout, which is very easy on the eyes, and I'd place lenses such as the 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar into this category. Mamiya 6 lenses are sharper, but do not have the Planar's consistency.
Nevertheless, I own a Leica M6, 1970's 35 Summicron, and the current 50/2.8 Elmar-M, and simply like the way the camera handles. Fortunately, Leica USA has lowered many prices, so the gear, while still very expensive, is much more affordable now. But Cameron Photo in Hong Kong has even better prices, and I may place an order for my 90/2.8 Elmarit-M lens with them later in the year--Cameron's price is US$850 versus the typical $1295 price in the US.
Jeff Segawa
That is about what I would expect.
I wish you would tell how you scanned them and how much sharpness filter you used. [...]
JCB : I scanned negatives with a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. I did not apply filters. I just ajusted the range of scanned densities to the same value for every picture.
I suspect . Nikon 35mm F1.4 AI is considered by many to be better than the 35mm F2 at most apertures but I don't own one so cannot say. I am quite impressed with the Nikon E 35mm E F2.5 I do own.
Best wishes.. Ed Romney http://www.edromney.com
I reviewed your tests with interest and was able to pick the Leica image everytime.
I have all new Leitz lenses 21asp/35f1.4asp/50f1.1noc/50f2/75f1.4 and I shoot mostly Kodachrome 25 anf 200 as I travel here there and everywhere shooting TV commercials and corporate films. The one interesting experience I have is that when I shoot color negative, for location searches or prelims usually associated with some project, whether in the US, Canada, UK or Europe and run it through a mini-lab I almost always get asked what kind of camera I'm using. The reason I'm asked is because the mini-lab operator usually the owner or system manager is curious what kind of camera would cause them to make a significant "dial down" of contrast setting. When I say Leica very often the response is "Ah, yes". This I consider a non-scientfic put quite interesting test.
regards
asparaco @ sparacodirects.com
you are welcome to use this as you please
Interesting tests. When I got my M6 I did a series of tripod tests with Velvia and Kodachrome 25. Cable releases, a damped tripod, Mirror lockup. I used medium range fixed targets and real scenes shot near infinity with the Nikkor 35/2 AIS and 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. The slides were coded by a friend and I examioned them "blind" on a Wild research microscope at 30-40X.
My results were similar to yours:
@ f/5.6 there is no detectable difference in overall sharpness or contrast. Both lenses are wonderful, though the pictures have different character in the out of focus areas.
At f/4 the Leica lnes has a slight edge in contrast, especially in the corners.
@ f/2.8 the Leica lens is noticably better in resolution and contrast.
@ f/2 the Leica kills the Nikon in resolution and contrast at the center and in the corners.
@ F/1.4 the Leica lens is better than the Nikkor is at f/2.8.
In several dozen rolls of Kodachrome 64 and E100VS shot under real world conditions my conclusions from the more controlled tests are fully borne out. Under average conditions the Leica and Nikon lenses are more or less comparable. But under marginal conditions the Leica gear provides a genuine, tangible edge - at 5 times the price of the Nikkor. But you do get at least two more usable f/stops in a smaller package!
By the way, I also was able to pick the Leica frames in each one of your test scans. Remarkable.
Regards,
Alexey Merz