The Jupiter is and will remain my favorite. Granted, it offers more restraint from the widest aperture when it comes to contrast, but that's precisely why I love it so much, not to mention its unstoppable looks. Thank you Nigel for your work
It gets into sharpness vs lens character, My Jupiter-3 is not the sharpest, but it does have that 'old school' lens character in spades. Dreamy effect, one might call it.
Have to admit I was a bit doubtful when I first encountered this channel but I’m now certain Nigel is a legend, although I suspect he would hate that. A connoisseur at work.
I have 3 of the lenses on test here, the Olympus, the Prakticar, and the Jupiter (in fact I have 3 Jupiters). One of the Jupiters is really only useable for BW, it seems to do strange things to colours, and one of the other 2 is absolutely needle sharp. I agree with each of Nigel's conclusions, the Oly is a magnificent lens, I've tested it against pretty much every Takumar in the 50-58mm range, the 50mm f1.4 fared the best, but only when stopped down to match the Oly aperture. My Minolta MC and MD range come closest to beating the Oly. I hang onto the Praktikar for sentimental reasons only, even though it's a decent performer. Another great weekly episode. George
I have one Jupiter 8 in my stable and have a second sample on order. I have a feeling that they vary a bit from sample to sample. Based on my sample (of one, not statistically valid), it is not very sharp wide open, which is where I want to run it. I have an Industar 61 that I ran against the Jupiter and the former is quite sharp and contrasty! I did not expect such a large difference between the two. Fun stuff!
Standard lenses are usually great performers as back in the day they were the lenses on the cameras tested by Amateur Photographer and other mags. They sold the cameras they were mounted on. The differences between 1, 2 and 4 were hardly noticeable to my eye and to be honest, the Jupiter wouldn't have looked that bad if there were no comparison shots. Another good video!
Very interesting comparison - and a nice guessing game, many thanks Nigel. Personally I liked the images by lens #4 (Summitar) the best but I also like what you termed lack of contrast from the Jupiter 8 which to me comes closer to what the human eye actually sees, i.e., bringing out surfaces and structures under different lighting conditions. I was surprised to see quite sharp (the sharpest?) twigs with minimal chromatic abberation by the Jupiter 8 in the last shot.
My recommendation for a cheap 50mm is the Pentax M 50mm f1.7. Similar punchy contrast to the Olympus due to the SMC coatings, and equally razor sharp. However it’s a dream to disassemble and repair/restore if needed. And dirt cheap! Other options I love and that can be easily serviced: the Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.7 and any Nikkor 50mm f1.8, but the Konicas are harder to find and the Nikkors tend to cost a bit more than the Pentax M
I'm not surprised that the Olympus was the best. I think many people dismiss anything from Pentacon as iron curtain rubbish but for decades Dresden was arguably the world's leading centre of optical expertise which doesn't disappear just because the engineers found themselves in East Germany. It was probably difficult for them to stay state-of-the-art in terms of both design and manufacturing during the DDR but they still came up with some excellent products. I remember the Zeiss branded third party lenses from the 80s and into the 90s which Nigel often mentions. Wish I'd bought one or two. They were extremely cheap even compared to the cheapest Japanese lenses. I think they started at less than £50.
I'm not surprised by the result. Olympus made some of the best lenses for 35mm photography in the 70s and 80s that have not (in my opinion) been surpassed. These lenses (designs from the 70s and 80s) can be used on digital cameras with fantastic results. And they can be had at a ridiculously cheap price!
Fun one, Nigel, with interesting results. While the Jupiter-8 was the softest, and delivered the lowest contrast, there's something about the way it renders that I find very appealing, and I always enjoy shooting mine. (I also went through many copies to settle on one very good one.) Not surprised in the least that I liked the Olympus best, as it's long been one of my faves, along with the 50mm/1.4, providing one finds a good copy. The Leitz was easily identified for it's somewhat particular bokeh style. I like the Summitar, but don't love it. But, to my eye, the Prakticar was just a bit "flatter," less dimensional than the others, which puts it in last place for me, the Olympus in first. Thanks for doing this one!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: Those cameras, and lenses, are from the mostly B/W film days, are they not? I've seen fantastic B/W photos shot with those Russian cameras, as well as with the German originals.
BTW.. Congratulations with your purchase! I got a 1964 version the other day, near-mint, with the original leather-case, cost me 13,5€. It does work, somewhat, but will require a CLA, but then: These cameras where made to be serviceable 😊
Ha! Jumped off my couch having guessed them all right :) Bit of luck probably, but I waged everything that the Olympus would be sharpest. It's the lens I compare all vintage 50's with; if it's close in sharpness, it's sharp enough. Didn't know if Prakticar or Leica would be second but I lucked out, I put the Jupiter last since that is my experience with most Russians unfortunately.
Thanks for doing these tests and reviews for us. I'm not surprised that the Zuiko won. I recently did a similar test pitting the Zuiko 50mm 1.4 against the Canon EOS 50 1.4 MKII that is currently on the market. The results were so close that I culd only tell them apart whan I missed the focus on the Zuiko.
@@badger67 ok, she can load them up and go for it. You can be her photo-Sherpa and lug all her gear. That’s exactly how my better half started. Always saying she couldn’t do it (photograph). I bought her a Nikon D50 for Valentines Day years ago, and now, a bunch of cameras later, her favorite is the D700…… I created a monster! 🤣🤣
Thank you so much for these real life test. I have 2 nos. of Olympus 50mm f.18 (I used Olympus in the film era). I really did not expect it to perform so well. I have the Jupiter 8 too and about to bring it out for street photography. I will concentrate on the Jupiter 8 character instead of contrast and sharpness. Thank you so much for the test.
I got it right!!! I have the Olympus 50mm f1.8 in the 5 million series (serial numbers) ... I recognized it immediately... even though I'm using it on an OMD EM5 MKii ... it's a really nice lens and totally escapes tge 90degree light adjustments needed for digital lenses *for mine eyes anyway... thank you so much for all of your videos friend... you've reinforced my faith in my purchase.
For full disclosure, I have better experience with the colors *especially in blurred areas... but I get it, I think I have a much different color spectrum of light in the Caribbean.... this is my favorite vintage lens *that I own.
I have used both Praktica camera and lens, and Olympus. Printing both from FP4+ film on Ilford multigrade paper, returned clean results. Although I shot Portra 400 on Olympus with F1.8 lens, and the images where really good quality, at the golden hour.
You have confirmed my suspicions. I got a praktica L2 last year and a pentacon 50mm f1.8 which seems a bit sharper than the sonnar 50mm f2 on my contax ii, especially when I use retro films such as fomapan 400.
I've already said this on your previous video and I'm going to reiterate: I love this kind of content. Do keep posting the comparisons, please. And I wholeheartedly agree that the Prakticar is an awesome lens, even if you disregard its low price. At least as long as you're fine with its rather "artistic" bokeh.
of course, a different option is required for each lens, although the lenses look the same, all glass inside and outside are partially different, as is the entry of light into the camera. In order to get the same result, a minor correction in handling is required, although there is a minor difference in the option. All your photos are good, and with a little additional suggestion, i believe they would be exactly the same.
As I mention in a response to another comment, my experience with the single Jupiter 8 in my collection is that it is less sharp and contrasty than other legacy lenses I have. I was surprised that an Industar 61 was both sharp and contrasty and makes very nice images wide open. Thanks for the review, but my bank account hates you! ;)
Great fun! I guessed the Olympus as No. 1, but that was probably out of perversity! Love it - I agreed with you right down the line on this one. These tests beg the question of how much do exemplars of one particular lens vary? Especially with these older lenses, I would think the differences are significant. I've never thought to test multiples of the same lens modern or otherwise, but even in the modern camera forum, I hear people commenting on a particular exemplar of a lens being a bit better or worse than another. The only lens I have a duplicate of is the Canon FD f1.8. I'll have to wring out that pair of twins and see what I get.
Interesting comparo Nigel. Gee it looks cold over there ✌️🇦🇺 My two cents, each of the subjects gave different results obviously and good ones as well. Overall lens one with the exception of the the bird box nailed it. I thought the fall-off on the right hand side of the church shot was awful, again with the exception of lens one. Contrast and saturation can be fixed in post but not focus fall-off. Love your work🙏 #onceanartdirectoretcetc
I haven't got to the reveal yet. Number 1 is my favourite (a gorgeous lens), followed by 4, then 2 (it did some strange things on the roof of the church to my eye), then 3.
The leitz Summitar was introduced in 1939, It was the last lens designed by Max Berek. Leitz lenses at this time weren't known for their contrast and only post war ones were single coated. There were also variations in iris design. Most had a ten blades but the final runs reverted to the six blade type from the earlier Summar. It does beg the question should the earlier lenses be compared to later ones? Interesting review all the same.
Nice test, thanks Nigel. I guessed the Olympus and the Jupiter. I have the Olympus and recognized the contrast and look. I also have a Pentax 50mm 1.7 from same period, which I think is actually slightly better on an A7r2. Enjoyable comparison.
Great report as usual, this guy is an ace! Say, do you have one of those Sears 135mm 2.8 that are made in Japan? One of these came up for sale and I am wondering if it's any better than the Vivitar you reviewed on your channel (f2.8)
Well argued and documented! It's always some kind of search for a price/quality compromise. I don't have such a problem, because I will definitely not buy an expensive Summitar from my pension, but I have three pieces of cheap Jupiter-8, and also Tessar 2.8/50, Biotar 2/58, Helios 44 in two varieties, Meritar 2.9/50 and a handful of cheap Industars, and also Prakticar 1.8/50 (B mount) and also Domiplan 2.8/50 - speaking only of standard ones... Sometimes, for a more interesting bokeh blur, I specially use the "imperfect" ones, which cannot be obtained in perfect lens. And in general, in my photography, I am not looking for optical perfection. Rather, I am looking for content, emotion and mood. Perfection will not be achieved, so I do not waste money on it.
Whilst this type of video is okay Nigel think it's a bit geeky..... And when you out in the field with your chosen gear.. You do the best with your daily driver....Lab test of gear have there place....but can be a bit of a yawn..... Also find my jupiter 8 very good and also love my Industar 61 on my FED 2 Do prefer your reviews of mixed lenses to be fair..... Anyways God bless and keep safe mate!
Thanks for a very interesting video and comparisons. My first SLR was a Practika with a Pentacon 1.8 which I think is basically the same as the later Practicar 1.8. I replaced the Practika with an OM2 and Zuiko 1.8 . The Pentacon 1.8 was an excellent lens and on almost on a par with the Olympus 1.8.
Very interesting study. Does the adaptor to convert these lenses to a Fuji X mount reduce image quality? Also, putting a 50mm vintage lens with adaptor on my x pro 1, will the lens still be 50mm or will it end up as a 75mm lens?
I've been buying projector and vintage lenses for fun. And notice that there's a lot of flat shiny surfaces that reflect light back into the sensor. I bet some of those surfaces could be painted in matte Black and we would get an increase in contrast.
I have the Olympus 50 f1.8. Mine is dusty inside but the images are so nice. I'm surprised at how well yours did compared to the Leica. But lots of fun to watch!
Is the Praktica 50 1.8 the same lens as the Pentacon 50 1.8? I'd love to know if its only a rebrand or if there are differences. Anyway, big fan of the Pentacon. Since my first and older one has got a really sticky focus ring, i bought a newer one. To my disappointment they rounded the aperture blades in this newer model and it doesn't give me the nice sharp hexabokeh i like so much. Bummer. I think it has better multi-coating though.
I must confess, I haven't watched this video yet. But I had to chuckle when I read the title, come on guy, part of the hobby is wasting money, don't take that away from me!
Not being personally familiar with any of the 4 lenses, I didn’t even try to guess. I am not surprised the more modern lens was able to take first place especially being it was an Oly. I’d love to see a similar contest between the Oly and nifty fifties if say Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I’m willing to bet they are all good and it would come down to which feature is valued the most as to deciding the winner.
I need to pick up an Olympus 50 1.4 for the sake of comparing to my early Pentax K 50mm 1.4. I've had two copies and both have been bitingly sharp wide open. They are sharper than my CZ planar 50mm 1.4 wide open (though I love the planar at F2) and even compared to my Canon FD 55mm 1.2 aspherical, they can hold their own in both sharpness and bokeh.
How did you go about picking the cheap lenses to compare against the Leica? What made you choose these specific cheap lenses for the comparison? Were there any other lenses that you had, but chose not to incorporate into the test? If so, why? Other lenses that come to mind for such a test include the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8, Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8 Tessar, Nikkor-H 50mm f/2, Canon FD 50mm f/1.8, Minolta MD 50mm f/2, Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/1.8 and many others.
Is that The Leaning Church, somewhere in England? (Falling lines) It's not about the gear, Leicas don't take better composed photographs than any other branded rangefinder. Same with SLR's. It's all about the person looking through the viewfinder.. Some of the best photos ever where shot with fixed-lense cameras, often TLR's or medium-format bellow-cameras. Nonetheless, I have a decent collection of vintage 35mm cameras and lenses (I particularly like Minolta and Rokkors, besides my Contax IIa with various pre- and post-war lenses) but: My Fuji X10 is more than good enough for everyday use, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to press the shutter!
So the Jupiter 8 looks as sharp as movies from the 1930's, with their french nylons in front of the lens for their female stars. Sounds like It's qualities should be exploited. Or, if you can get an adapter for Fuji X, shooting it in Fuji's Velvia high saturation and high contrast simulation might be a winning combination.
@@sclogse1 oh ! That will teach me to switch off before the end ! I saw the first 3 photo comparisons and the Leica had the edge I can't fit an Olympus to a Zorki so would still like to know if the Leica would bolt into a Zorki happily
I'm getting a Zorki-4K with a Jupiter-8 tomorrow... hopefully both in working condition because it was a bargain (23€ with shipping). I think the Prakticar 50/1.8 is still the original Oreston design, but likely with improved coatings. The telltale sign is the slight swirl in the bokeh, it's noticeable on the first image. The Oreston is a stellar lens, I had the Pentacon 50/1.8 variant of it and was one of my favorite lenses I've ever had and I would buy a working one again. I had to sell mine as not working because the aperture got stuck at wide open.
Btw, update on the Zorki: I shot a test roll and everything seems to be fine. It's just the first camera I've had that made me look up the manual, twice. I wish the two parts of the case sere separable.
One word of caution about the Olympus. You need to make sure the copy you buy is optically clean without any fungus. This lens has a sealed objective containing a number of lenses. Unfortunately it wasn’t sealed enough by Olympus to prevent ingres of fungal spores, and once there, there’s nothing you can do about it. With clean optics, as Nigel shows, Olympus lenses are up there with the best, but be careful and certainly don’t pay much for a copy if you can’t shine a bright torch inside to spot fungal growth
I compared my Nikon ais 28mm 2. against my Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. The results were surprising with the Nikon 28mm 2 holding its own vs the Sony 35 GM, its a very sharp lens! and contrasty .
Honestly, I preferred the old videos, like old reviews from a couple of years back. They weren't technical at all, but that was part of the fun; rather study of lens' character. This is not a way to compare lens' capabilities nor really technical either, and it'll be kinda repeatable to do it again and again just with different lenses (point is kind of being already made). Just my two cents, playing a bit of a devil's advocate and simply offering a personal, honest feedback. I've no doubt this gets more views (which is probably why there is a sequel), and it's hard to argue against that.
oh you are thowing your money away that is for sure , you have 100 cameras and 200 lenses .. As far as lenses go , its all about pixel density , the denser and smaller your pixels are the worst the lens will perform , example Canon 5D classic 8nm pixel , i can put oldest lenses on it and they are razor sharp , put the same lens on Canon 6D , or 6Dmk2 , and there you go chromatic aberration , no razor sharpness any more , and no other things . So think about your lens density , the higher it is , the more expensive glass you will need .
The Jupiter is and will remain my favorite. Granted, it offers more restraint from the widest aperture when it comes to contrast, but that's precisely why I love it so much, not to mention its unstoppable looks.
Thank you Nigel for your work
It gets into sharpness vs lens character, My Jupiter-3 is not the sharpest, but it does have that 'old school' lens character in spades. Dreamy effect, one might call it.
Have to admit I was a bit doubtful when I first encountered this channel but I’m now certain Nigel is a legend, although I suspect he would hate that. A connoisseur at work.
Thanks mon ami, glad your doubts have been overcome!
I have 3 of the lenses on test here, the Olympus, the Prakticar, and the Jupiter (in fact I have 3 Jupiters).
One of the Jupiters is really only useable for BW, it seems to do strange things to colours, and one of the other 2 is absolutely needle sharp.
I agree with each of Nigel's conclusions, the Oly is a magnificent lens, I've tested it against pretty much every Takumar in the 50-58mm range, the 50mm f1.4 fared the best, but only when stopped down to match the Oly aperture. My Minolta MC and MD range come closest to beating the Oly. I hang onto the Praktikar for sentimental reasons only, even though it's a decent performer.
Another great weekly episode.
George
I have one Jupiter 8 in my stable and have a second sample on order. I have a feeling that they vary a bit from sample to sample. Based on my sample (of one, not statistically valid), it is not very sharp wide open, which is where I want to run it. I have an Industar 61 that I ran against the Jupiter and the former is quite sharp and contrasty! I did not expect such a large difference between the two.
Fun stuff!
Standard lenses are usually great performers as back in the day they were the lenses on the cameras tested by Amateur Photographer and other mags. They sold the cameras they were mounted on. The differences between 1, 2 and 4 were hardly noticeable to my eye and to be honest, the Jupiter wouldn't have looked that bad if there were no comparison shots. Another good video!
Very interesting comparison - and a nice guessing game, many thanks Nigel. Personally I liked the images by lens #4 (Summitar) the best but I also like what you termed lack of contrast from the Jupiter 8 which to me comes closer to what the human eye actually sees, i.e., bringing out surfaces and structures under different lighting conditions. I was surprised to see quite sharp (the sharpest?) twigs with minimal chromatic abberation by the Jupiter 8 in the last shot.
My recommendation for a cheap 50mm is the Pentax M 50mm f1.7. Similar punchy contrast to the Olympus due to the SMC coatings, and equally razor sharp. However it’s a dream to disassemble and repair/restore if needed. And dirt cheap! Other options I love and that can be easily serviced: the Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.7 and any Nikkor 50mm f1.8, but the Konicas are harder to find and the Nikkors tend to cost a bit more than the Pentax M
always loved the pentax m 50mm f/1.7 myself
I'm not surprised that the Olympus was the best. I think many people dismiss anything from Pentacon as iron curtain rubbish but for decades Dresden was arguably the world's leading centre of optical expertise which doesn't disappear just because the engineers found themselves in East Germany. It was probably difficult for them to stay state-of-the-art in terms of both design and manufacturing during the DDR but they still came up with some excellent products. I remember the Zeiss branded third party lenses from the 80s and into the 90s which Nigel often mentions. Wish I'd bought one or two. They were extremely cheap even compared to the cheapest Japanese lenses. I think they started at less than £50.
Wasn’t Zeiss located in East Germany aswell?
I'm not surprised by the result. Olympus made some of the best lenses for 35mm photography in the 70s and 80s that have not (in my opinion) been surpassed. These lenses (designs from the 70s and 80s) can be used on digital cameras with fantastic results. And they can be had at a ridiculously cheap price!
Helt enig!
I love my OM-1's!!
Fun one, Nigel, with interesting results. While the Jupiter-8 was the softest, and delivered the lowest contrast, there's something about the way it renders that I find very appealing, and I always enjoy shooting mine. (I also went through many copies to settle on one very good one.) Not surprised in the least that I liked the Olympus best, as it's long been one of my faves, along with the 50mm/1.4, providing one finds a good copy. The Leitz was easily identified for it's somewhat particular bokeh style. I like the Summitar, but don't love it. But, to my eye, the Prakticar was just a bit "flatter," less dimensional than the others, which puts it in last place for me, the Olympus in first. Thanks for doing this one!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
Those cameras, and lenses, are from the mostly B/W film days,
are they not?
I've seen fantastic B/W photos shot with those Russian cameras, as well as with the German originals.
BTW.. Congratulations with your purchase!
I got a 1964 version the other day, near-mint, with the original leather-case, cost me 13,5€.
It does work, somewhat, but will require a CLA, but then:
These cameras where made to be serviceable 😊
Mounting the low contrast Jupiter on Fuji X and selecting it's high saturation and high contrast Velvia setting may be a winner.
Ha! Jumped off my couch having guessed them all right :) Bit of luck probably, but I waged everything that the Olympus would be sharpest. It's the lens I compare all vintage 50's with; if it's close in sharpness, it's sharp enough. Didn't know if Prakticar or Leica would be second but I lucked out, I put the Jupiter last since that is my experience with most Russians unfortunately.
Thanks for doing these tests and reviews for us. I'm not surprised that the Zuiko won. I recently did a similar test pitting the Zuiko 50mm 1.4 against the Canon EOS 50 1.4 MKII that is currently on the market. The results were so close that I culd only tell them apart whan I missed the focus on the Zuiko.
My wife has 3 old SLR's stored away since the 90's when she last used them. The classic Olympus OM-10, a Zenith and a Praktica. Maybe, just maybe.
No maybe about it. Load ‘em up and go for it!
@@jayabramson6702 you haven't met my wife 🤣👍
@@badger67 ok, she can load them up and go for it. You can be her photo-Sherpa and lug all her gear. That’s exactly how my better half started. Always saying she couldn’t do it (photograph). I bought her a Nikon D50 for Valentines Day years ago, and now, a bunch of cameras later, her favorite is the D700……
I created a monster! 🤣🤣
@@badger67 well…no. Lol
@@jayabramson6702 Photo-Sherpa 🤣🤣
A D50?, I gave mine a D40, and the first thing she said was "Does it do video?"
The things we do for our babes 😁
I basically don't use my Jupiter for the reasons you outline. My son likes it for its softness. Nice vid!
Thank you so much for these real life test. I have 2 nos. of Olympus 50mm f.18 (I used Olympus in the film era). I really did not expect it to perform so well. I have the Jupiter 8 too and about to bring it out for street photography. I will concentrate on the Jupiter 8 character instead of contrast and sharpness. Thank you so much for the test.
I got it right!!! I have the Olympus 50mm f1.8 in the 5 million series (serial numbers) ... I recognized it immediately... even though I'm using it on an OMD EM5 MKii ... it's a really nice lens and totally escapes tge 90degree light adjustments needed for digital lenses *for mine eyes anyway... thank you so much for all of your videos friend... you've reinforced my faith in my purchase.
For full disclosure, I have better experience with the colors *especially in blurred areas... but I get it, I think I have a much different color spectrum of light in the Caribbean.... this is my favorite vintage lens *that I own.
Zuiko-lenses are/where fantastic!
In fact, Olympus made top-notch gear, I own two OM-1's and they are perhaps the favourite SLR's in my collection!
I have used both Praktica camera and lens, and Olympus. Printing both from FP4+ film on Ilford multigrade paper, returned clean results. Although I shot Portra 400 on Olympus with F1.8 lens, and the images where really good quality, at the golden hour.
You have confirmed my suspicions. I got a praktica L2 last year and a pentacon 50mm f1.8 which seems a bit sharper than the sonnar 50mm f2 on my contax ii, especially when I use retro films such as fomapan 400.
I've already said this on your previous video and I'm going to reiterate: I love this kind of content. Do keep posting the comparisons, please.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the Prakticar is an awesome lens, even if you disregard its low price. At least as long as you're fine with its rather "artistic" bokeh.
Great job. Your videos are always interesting and well done. Thanks.
Glad you like them!
of course, a different option is required for each lens, although the lenses look the same, all glass inside and outside are partially different, as is the entry of light into the camera. In order to get the same result, a minor correction in handling is required, although there is a minor difference in the option. All your photos are good, and with a little additional suggestion, i believe they would be exactly the same.
Adore the pentacon. Olympus are super sweet, but I'm not really a fan of the cold colour rendition.
As I mention in a response to another comment, my experience with the single Jupiter 8 in my collection is that it is less sharp and contrasty than other legacy lenses I have. I was surprised that an Industar 61 was both sharp and contrasty and makes very nice images wide open.
Thanks for the review, but my bank account hates you! ;)
Great fun! I guessed the Olympus as No. 1, but that was probably out of perversity! Love it - I agreed with you right down the line on this one. These tests beg the question of how much do exemplars of one particular lens vary? Especially with these older lenses, I would think the differences are significant. I've never thought to test multiples of the same lens modern or otherwise, but even in the modern camera forum, I hear people commenting on a particular exemplar of a lens being a bit better or worse than another. The only lens I have a duplicate of is the Canon FD f1.8. I'll have to wring out that pair of twins and see what I get.
I think jupiter is the winner of the test. Biggest dynamic range is obviously in jupiter’s photos, especially the shadows were full of data.
Data to be exploited!
Thank you, great, would have been nice to include some kind of modern vintage glass aswell maybe.
Interesting comparo Nigel. Gee it looks cold over there ✌️🇦🇺
My two cents, each of the subjects gave different results obviously and good ones as well. Overall lens one with the exception of the the bird box nailed it. I thought the fall-off on the right hand side of the church shot was awful, again with the exception of lens one. Contrast and saturation can be fixed in post but not focus fall-off. Love your work🙏
#onceanartdirectoretcetc
Love this format and the comparison of the lenses with photos from each.
I haven't got to the reveal yet. Number 1 is my favourite (a gorgeous lens), followed by 4, then 2 (it did some strange things on the roof of the church to my eye), then 3.
The leitz Summitar was introduced in 1939, It was the last lens designed by Max Berek. Leitz lenses at this time weren't known for their contrast and only post war ones were single coated. There were also variations in iris design. Most had a ten blades but the final runs reverted to the six blade type from the earlier Summar. It does beg the question should the earlier lenses be compared to later ones? Interesting review all the same.
Great vid as always …. I have an old Olympus 50mm 1.4 in my collection … must give it a try on my Xt2….. what’s the best adapter to use ??
Whatever fits your budget..
I own that lens, it is fantastic!!
Used it with the cheapest adapter I could find, absolutely a Killer 50mm lens!!
K&F Concept OlyOM / Fuji FX. They are not expensive and are very well made. I usetwo of them: Pentx PK and Canon FD with my X-T2.
The Summitar was first sold in 1939 but only coated post war. 11,000 made in '39. Peak sales of 27,754 in 1950. Improved design from 1953 on.
Interesting and very informative video as usual!
Nice test, thanks Nigel. I guessed the Olympus and the Jupiter. I have the Olympus and recognized the contrast and look. I also have a Pentax 50mm 1.7 from same period, which I think is actually slightly better on an A7r2. Enjoyable comparison.
Great report as usual, this guy is an ace!
Say, do you have one of those Sears 135mm 2.8 that are made in Japan? One of these came up for sale and I am wondering if it's any better than the Vivitar you reviewed on your channel (f2.8)
Well argued and documented!
It's always some kind of search for a price/quality compromise. I don't have such a problem, because I will definitely not buy an expensive Summitar from my pension, but I have three pieces of cheap Jupiter-8, and also Tessar 2.8/50, Biotar 2/58, Helios 44 in two varieties, Meritar 2.9/50 and a handful of cheap Industars, and also Prakticar 1.8/50 (B mount) and also Domiplan 2.8/50 - speaking only of standard ones... Sometimes, for a more interesting bokeh blur, I specially use the "imperfect" ones, which cannot be obtained in perfect lens. And in general, in my photography, I am not looking for optical perfection. Rather, I am looking for content, emotion and mood. Perfection will not be achieved, so I do not waste money on it.
As always a superb video!
Great comparison Nigel! Quick question - do you have an automated system that locks onto your face for pieces to camera? Best regards, Dave.
Whilst this type of video is okay Nigel think it's a bit geeky.....
And when you out in the field with your chosen gear..
You do the best with your daily driver....Lab test of gear have there place....but can be a bit of a yawn.....
Also find my jupiter 8 very good and also love my Industar 61 on my FED 2
Do prefer your reviews of mixed lenses to be fair.....
Anyways God bless and keep safe mate!
Thanks for a very interesting video and comparisons. My first SLR was a Practika with a Pentacon 1.8 which I think is basically the same as the later Practicar 1.8. I replaced the Practika with an OM2 and Zuiko 1.8 . The Pentacon 1.8 was an excellent lens and on almost on a par with the Olympus 1.8.
Again, Olympus right up there
Very interesting study. Does the adaptor to convert these lenses to a Fuji X mount reduce image quality? Also, putting a 50mm vintage lens with adaptor on my x pro 1, will the lens still be 50mm or will it end up as a 75mm lens?
I've been buying projector and vintage lenses for fun. And notice that there's a lot of flat shiny surfaces that reflect light back into the sensor. I bet some of those surfaces could be painted in matte Black and we would get an increase in contrast.
I have the Olympus 50 f1.8. Mine is dusty inside but the images are so nice. I'm surprised at how well yours did compared to the Leica. But lots of fun to watch!
Is the Praktica 50 1.8 the same lens as the Pentacon 50 1.8? I'd love to know if its only a rebrand or if there are differences.
Anyway, big fan of the Pentacon. Since my first and older one has got a really sticky focus ring, i bought a newer one. To my disappointment they rounded the aperture blades in this newer model and it doesn't give me the nice sharp hexabokeh i like so much. Bummer. I think it has better multi-coating though.
I must confess, I haven't watched this video yet. But I had to chuckle when I read the title, come on guy, part of the hobby is wasting money, don't take that away from me!
😀 I guess you're right!
Not being personally familiar with any of the 4 lenses, I didn’t even try to guess. I am not surprised the more modern lens was able to take first place especially being it was an Oly. I’d love to see a similar contest between the Oly and nifty fifties if say Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I’m willing to bet they are all good and it would come down to which feature is valued the most as to deciding the winner.
I need to pick up an Olympus 50 1.4 for the sake of comparing to my early Pentax K 50mm 1.4. I've had two copies and both have been bitingly sharp wide open. They are sharper than my CZ planar 50mm 1.4 wide open (though I love the planar at F2) and even compared to my Canon FD 55mm 1.2 aspherical, they can hold their own in both sharpness and bokeh.
Thanks
Thanks!
How did you go about picking the cheap lenses to compare against the Leica? What made you choose these specific cheap lenses for the comparison? Were there any other lenses that you had, but chose not to incorporate into the test? If so, why? Other lenses that come to mind for such a test include the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8, Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8 Tessar, Nikkor-H 50mm f/2, Canon FD 50mm f/1.8, Minolta MD 50mm f/2, Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/1.8 and many others.
I was using my super takumar 135 and thinking why would I need another lens for that focal lengh when it delivers fine results.
Of course much more lengh with the M42 adapter on my MTF Olympus body.
Because you never know
...
Takumars are fantastic lenses.
As are vintage Rokkors.
If you have a selection of either, it's not the lenses fault if your photos are sub-par!
@@hansemannluchter643 I try ha ha.
Is that The Leaning Church, somewhere in England?
(Falling lines)
It's not about the gear,
Leicas don't take better composed photographs than any other branded rangefinder.
Same with SLR's.
It's all about the person looking through the viewfinder..
Some of the best photos ever where shot with fixed-lense cameras, often TLR's or medium-format bellow-cameras.
Nonetheless, I have a decent collection of vintage 35mm cameras and lenses (I particularly like Minolta and Rokkors, besides my Contax IIa with various pre- and post-war lenses) but:
My Fuji X10 is more than good enough for everyday use, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to press the shutter!
So the Jupiter 8 looks as sharp as movies from the 1930's, with their french nylons in front of the lens for their female stars. Sounds like It's qualities should be exploited. Or, if you can get an adapter for Fuji X, shooting it in Fuji's Velvia high saturation and high contrast simulation might be a winning combination.
Olympus love💞
Surprised by the Jupiter, but certainly not by the Zuiko.
Disappointed that the Leica won but I guess it's to be expected!
Will that lens fit and work on a Zorki 4 ?
I thought the Olympus won.
It did.
@@sclogse1 oh ! That will teach me to switch off before the end ! I saw the first 3 photo comparisons and the Leica had the edge
I can't fit an Olympus to a Zorki so would still like to know if the Leica would bolt into a Zorki happily
I'm getting a Zorki-4K with a Jupiter-8 tomorrow... hopefully both in working condition because it was a bargain (23€ with shipping).
I think the Prakticar 50/1.8 is still the original Oreston design, but likely with improved coatings. The telltale sign is the slight swirl in the bokeh, it's noticeable on the first image. The Oreston is a stellar lens, I had the Pentacon 50/1.8 variant of it and was one of my favorite lenses I've ever had and I would buy a working one again. I had to sell mine as not working because the aperture got stuck at wide open.
Btw, update on the Zorki: I shot a test roll and everything seems to be fine. It's just the first camera I've had that made me look up the manual, twice. I wish the two parts of the case sere separable.
Show us your collection of antique squids
I don't show those to just anyone I'm afraid.
One word of caution about the Olympus. You need to make sure the copy you buy is optically clean without any fungus. This lens has a sealed objective containing a number of lenses. Unfortunately it wasn’t sealed enough by Olympus to prevent ingres of fungal spores, and once there, there’s nothing you can do about it. With clean optics, as Nigel shows, Olympus lenses are up there with the best, but be careful and certainly don’t pay much for a copy if you can’t shine a bright torch inside to spot fungal growth
I will translate to Fuji GFX for woodland after I update my Nikon system to D850 standard. A 15mmF2.8 and a 400mmf2.8 VR and a D850 left to get.
I compared my Nikon ais 28mm 2. against my Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. The results were surprising with the Nikon 28mm 2 holding its own vs the Sony 35 GM, its a very sharp lens! and contrasty .
Honestly, I preferred the old videos, like old reviews from a couple of years back. They weren't technical at all, but that was part of the fun; rather study of lens' character. This is not a way to compare lens' capabilities nor really technical either, and it'll be kinda repeatable to do it again and again just with different lenses (point is kind of being already made). Just my two cents, playing a bit of a devil's advocate and simply offering a personal, honest feedback. I've no doubt this gets more views (which is probably why there is a sequel), and it's hard to argue against that.
Yes, still wasting money buying all sort of old lenses I probably never use...
I love dinosaurs and your videos.
I guessed correctly on all of the lenses =) ... The Summitar wins in my opinion, the best character and most interesting output.
Yes
I thought this was an excellent video. Considering the age of some of them (Jupiter and Leica) I thought they performed very well.
Probably am. Just ordered a new 24-70 f/2.8 for $1,200
4,1,2,3
Yes I’m still wasting money on digi cams ☺️
So... get your Olympus M5 fixed. 😊
oh you are thowing your money away that is for sure , you have 100 cameras and 200 lenses .. As far as lenses go , its all about pixel density , the denser and smaller your pixels are the worst the lens will perform , example Canon 5D classic 8nm pixel , i can put oldest lenses on it and they are razor sharp , put the same lens on Canon 6D , or 6Dmk2 , and there you go chromatic aberration , no razor sharpness any more , and no other things . So think about your lens density , the higher it is , the more expensive glass you will need .
Mr Pavlovic nemoj da se foliras.
The short answer is yes haha
What brand do you prefer for adapters