• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / 50mm ‘lux, Nikkor-H on a7II — drawing and corner smear

50mm ‘lux, Nikkor-H on a7II — drawing and corner smear

February 3, 2015 JimK 3 Comments

Both the 2007 Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and the 1952 Nikon 50mm f/2 Nikkor-H, when used on the Sony alpha & Mark II (a7II), suffer from corner smear. Since corner smear not only reduces resolution, but imparts its own — IMHO, really ugly — look to the image, I’m foregoing test charts and MTF calculations in favor of actual pictures of real-world scenes.

We’ll get to the corners, but first we’ll look at the way the two lenses draw at various resolutions. I focused on the tree at the upper right.

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

A color shift is evident. I set the white balance in Lr to Daylight, and performed no further corrections, so what your seeing is probably the result of 50+ years of progress in lens coating. The greater light falloff of the Nikkor is clearly evident, The Summilux has some falloff as well, but it appears as little more than benign edge-burning. The Nikkor has some overall veiling flare; I did not use a lens hood on either lens. I suspect that the old lens coatings just weren’t as effective as the current ones.

Stopping down a bit:

Nikkor f/4

Nikkor f/4

Summilux f/4

Summilux f/4

Now the lens falloff for the Nikkor is acceptable, and the Summilux has gotten to about as good as it’s going to get, which is very good. The flare of the Nikkor is better. The biggest differences between the images res’d down for the web is the color balance.

One more stop for the Nikkor:

 

Nikkor f/5.6
Nikkor f/5.6

And edge falloff is pretty well controlled.

Now the corners, at 2:1.

 

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

Neither one is very good, but the Nikkor is clearly worse. Quite a bit of chromatic aberration in the Nikkor image.

Stopping down one stop:

Nikkor f/2.8
Nikkor f/2.8
Summilux f/2.8
Summilux f/2.8

Big improvement for both. The Nikkor is still ugly and has some purple CA, and the ‘lux is acceptable for many circumstances. One more stop down:

Nikkor f/4
Nikkor f/4
Summilux f/4
Summilux f/4

The Nikon is still pretty bad but the CA is getting better, and the Leica is pretty good.

One more yet:

 

Nikkor f/5.6
Nikkor f/5.6
Summiluz f/5.6
Summilux f/5.6

Now the ‘lux is fine. Nikon? Not so much, and still some CA.

One more:

Nikkor f/8
Nikkor f/8

 

Summilux f/8
Summilux f/8

The Nikon is still not there yet, but the CA is almost gone.

I won’t show you any more Leica images, since it’s fine at f/8, even f/5.6.

Nikkor f/11
Nikkor f/11

Now the Nikkor’s not bad.

Last one:

Nikkor f/16
Nikkor f/16

The Nikon is still getting better, but, as we saw yesterday, the center resolution is dropping even af f/11.

The old Nikon lens is looking canine on the a7II.

The Last Word

← 50mm ‘lux, Nikkor-H on a7II — center MTF 50MM ‘LUX, NIKKOR-H ON A7II — center & summary →

Comments

  1. luis says

    February 11, 2015 at 6:15 am

    Hi!
    Do you think there is any improvement on smearing between A7 and A7II ?
    thanks for all the info you share !
    BTW: would be great to have a “response comment subscription” 😉

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 11, 2015 at 7:20 am

      No difference in corner smearing between the a7 and a7II. The corner smearing is a function of the sensor stack thickness, which is the same for all the E and FE mount cameras.

      WRT the response comment subscription, do you know of a WordPress widget that does that?

      Jim

      Reply
      • luis says

        February 13, 2015 at 2:34 am

        Thanks, yes the sensor stack is the same so there is no “improvement”… but there is always the hope for better performance even if there is no logic in the argument 🙂

        For the comments, install and activate jetpack plugin (it is very useful for statistics and many other things) then go to your dashboard -> settings -> discussion, the last option is about subscriptions.
        Luis

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.