Nikkor vs summicron

[belgiumreporter]

I recently came across the possibility to change mounts on leica R glass towards nikon mount. Ken Rockwell went all lyrical about the summigron 50 as being the best 50 ever. I've only used both canadian and german made summicrons on film and i'm not that happy with the six bladed diafragm in these. Before jumping into another adventure wich will cost me at least 100$ , i went out and tried my nikkor 50 1:1,2 on the D3 wideopen and i (for my kind of photography ) care to differ in opinion about the R glass. I can't make a straight comparison because i can't mount the summicron on the D3, but after seing the results with the nikkor( once more) i guess i won't go through the trouble. Maybe i'm not critical enough or just lazy ?
Anyway i'm going to try the nikkor on somewhat more difficult street photography, we'll see...

Nikkor 50 1:1.2 in the garden




Summicron 50 1:2  (canada) on leicaflex sl2 HP5 out in the streets

[truls]

So, which lens is this image created with?


I thought so, it is not possible to tell.

That is also kind of my answer comparing Summicron-R and Nikkor lens. They are both very, very good lenses, there has to be other factors when choosing. Nikkor is f1.2, much better in lowlight conditions. It seems from your photos it is a most sharp and good lens. How could a slower Summicron then have any advantage compared to your fine Nikkor lens?

I would not trust mr. Rockwell for choosing lenses. After all, he is living of his site writing whatever gets some income. I have seen he says "gear does not matter", later on he says this the best "must have" lens etc. Why?

Other factors: The smallest amount of handshake will distort the finest lenses leaving them mediocre, this goes for error in exposure also. Good lenses are in practice equal when stopped down. Sensor size, can your sensor keep up with the best lenses? If we need fine instruments to choose lens, I am not sure if it is photography we are doing. All major brands have very good lenses, it is almost imossible to tell them apart. Of course if you know each lens and their special rendering, bokeh etc, but most people cant tell the difference.

So, it is no easy answer, I think Stephen or Phil has to fill in with some more professional expertise on this matter.

Edit: Zeiss lenses are also famous for their microcontrast, giving the final punch which makes photos stand out.

[Stephen]

As you say, the performance can be altered by the body, especially with reflexes, where the mirror causes vibrations that although damped, are still there.
Zeiss camera with good lenses had leaf shutters, and I think the edge they showed was down to the shutter not vibrating.

Rangefinder cameras taking top quality lenses are bound to have the edge on Reflex camera, unless well damped.

I tested the OM1 with the mirror up, and definition was slightly better, and Kodachrome slides looked a fraction sharper......and the same applied to Nikon as well.....

Top marque lenses are just that, good lenses, the differences are minute, more to do with colour handling than sharpness.

Add in handshake and comparisons are made useless.
Stephen

[daveh]

Rangefinder cameras taking top quality lenses are bound to have the edge on Reflex camera, unless well damped.

It's a case of all other things being equal. Most reflex cameras have the problem of the mirror clunking up and down. However, not all reflexes have e a mirror. Obviously Twin Lens Reflexes don't, but many single lens reflex cameras on the market now have digital viewfinders. What's more there isn't the problem with shutter vibration (however small that might have been) compared to old cameras. With built-in image stabisation thrown in there is a whole new ball game out there.



One big problem with making comparisons is that by the time the photos get viewed on a monitor as part of a website such as this much of the potential quality has already disappeared.