the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / 50MM ‘LUX, NIKKOR-H ON A7II — center & summary

50MM ‘LUX, NIKKOR-H ON A7II — center & summary

February 4, 2015 By JimK 1 Comment

We looked at the overall image and the upper right corner here. Now, let’s take a look at some crops from near the center of the two sets of images.

Nikkor f/2
Nikkor f/2
Summilux f/2
Summilux f/2

The Summilux is clearly resolving better. The MTF charts told us that it would. The diffuse flare of the Nikkor softens the image. The color balance is still different. What else? Not a lot that I can see. Maybe the other differences are obscuring the subtleties.

Nikkor f/8
Nikkor f/8
Summilux f/8
Summilux f/8

At f/8 the Nikkor is sharper, but it’s still not as good as the Leica is at f/2. That, the color balance, and the flare (though it’s better at f/8) all make it hard for me to see many other differences.

Summary

It’s clear that the ‘lux, while struggling a bit a wide apertures on the a7II, outclasses the Nikkor in all important respects. And why shouldn’t it. It costs 15 times what the Nikon lens does. It’s got 50 more years of optical design and construction improvements on it. It’s got exotic glass. It’s got aspherical elements.

But here’s the thing. I used that Nikkor for 40 years and got lovely images with it. I knew it wasn’t the sharpest thing in the world wide open, so I either didn’t open it up all the way, or did so only in circumstances where the softness wouldn’t be a problem. I never noticed the veiling flare until I got a Hasselblad in 1981,

Does the Nikkor have character? I’m afraid that character in lenses, like in automobile handling or high-fidelity sound systems, often translates to “endearing flaws”. In the case of the Nikkor, I believe none of its flaws are endearing, and all of them could be simulated in post starting with an image from a really good lens.

So this Nikkor is going back to being a Nikon S body cap. Too bad.

 

← 50mm ‘lux, Nikkor-H on a7II — drawing and corner smear More infrared panos →

Comments

  1. Herb says

    February 15, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Jim, After my experience with the 28 Elmarit M, I got the R version and solved the smearing. Are you using an M lens in this comparison?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Ludwig Haskins on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Anthony New on Camera resolution and 4K viewing — summary
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • CarVac on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Bill Claff on Detectability of visual signals below the noise

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.