Jean-Claude Berger - Consultant, Formateur indépendant - MCSE - MCT - MCP
Formations Systèmes Microsoft, Windows 2003, XP, 2000, NT
SQL Server, ISA Server, TCP/IP
Conseil et Développement
Home
I will try to give a personal opinion. Don't forget I did not want to realize a definitive and absolute test but a genuinely practical one. On another side, I could observe the negatives (moreover of numerous frames), you can only judge on small digitized portions. The perception we have of the differences between those lenses might, logically, differ. So do your own tests before buying anything!
Nikon F3, Nikon 35/2 mm, Agfa HDC+ 400, Lyon
Clearly, the Summicron 35 mm is better than the Nikon at full aperture. There is a huge difference of sharpness and contrast in the center of the frame. I was afraid of a motion blur, but the edge detail shows that the Leica looses its advantage and the Nikon seems slightly better.
At f/4, the Summicron shows a better contrast and resolution at the edge and a slightly better contrast on the entire field but the center resolution does not change. Contrast and resolution of the Nikon are far better than at f/2. It surpasses the Leica at least by its contrast in center of frame, the Summicron being very slightly better on the edge.
The out of focus details are richer with the Summicron and tone rendition is subtler at least in black and white. Another test shows that, in color shots, the difference is invisible if not in favor of Nikon.
So, the Summicron is a better lens at f/2 to f/4. The difference in quality at full aperture was a real surprise and so is the way that are rendered out of focus objects. On the Nikon, they are clearly fuzzy. With the Leica, they are "less than sharp". Of course, physics laws are the same for all lenses in the world, and depth of field formulas don't depend on the lens maker, but there is something special with this lens in that area. It's a subject that would need some work.
Did I throw my Nikon 35 mm out the window when I saw the results? Of course not. At f/4, it is as sharp as the Leica and no one could be ashamed by its pictures. Moreover, another test not published here reveals that the Nikon is better from f/5.6!
When I will be able to choose, I'll use the Summicron for its tonality differentiation performances in BW or when I'll suspect I will have to shoot in low light. In color, when the Sun shines, I will use the Nikon.
At f/2, definition of the Summicron is slightly better at center but the Nikon presents more contrast. At the edge, both contrast and definition is very slightly better with the Leica. At f/4, the Leica is slightly sharper too, both at center and edge.
I really needed to see it myself to believe this one. Yes, the difference is small, really small, but we speak about a lens made in 1960 against one designed in the 90's (I'm not so sure about that, actually). I understand that Nikon did not redesign it for a long time but it's, nevertheless, amazing. What would give a modern Summicron?
OK, I now know why there are Leica enthusiasts. If you shoot "mood" pictures, with low light and shallow depth of field, you will be happier with the Leica lenses.
If you are a landscape photographer and love sunny pictures I doubt you'll see an advantage with either brand.
Actually, Leica seems to concentrate on technical challenges and Nikon on economical efficiency.
Nikon F3, Nikon 35/2 mm, Agfa HDC+ 400, Lyon
What I don't understand is why magazines tests don't, in general, reflect that difference. As I read Chasseur d'Images, which I consider as a very reliable tester and at least very consistent along the time, I can only conclude that the Nikon 35 mm is better than the Leica (I don't have tests for the 50 mm Summicron). When I was reading Modern Photography, the Leica lenses got average tests too when compared to Nikon or Canon.
Strange, as these two magazines don't rely (or don't rely only for Chasseur d'Images) on the MTF benchmarks. One could think that mirror vibrations caused the differences. But remember that Nikon pictures sharpen when speed goes down (as aperture gets smaller). This is not the problem.
To be fair, let's say that Photodo rated the Summicron 4.1 and the Nikon 3.9. Do 0.2 points make that difference?
I'm going to think that benchmarks don't tell us all what we should know.
© Jean-Claude Berger, 1999
