[motorhead9999]

Well, my SMC 85mm f1.8 came in yesterday, so I took it out along with the f2 90mm summicron and did a little A/B testing. So let's play a game:

Here's two sample photo sets. One in each was taken with the Summicron, one was taken with the Pentax. Both were taken adapted on my 61mp Sony A7riv. All of these are SOOC, with no edits done, except a small crop on one picture in the first comparison set to make it less obvious as to which lens it was. Shutter speed and ISO was identical between each pair of images. Both lenses were shot wide open (so 1.8 on the pentax, 2 on the summicron).

Try and guess which one is which. Obviously two pictures aren't the final say on how the two lenses compare, but this was what I was able to muster this morning. I'll let people discuss and guess for a bit before revealing the answer

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

Thanks for the read, gentlemen. It's sure to be of interest to photographers interested in collecting.

[lesmore49]

About the only person I'd listen to about such matters on this forum is Digitalis.... but... he probally owns them all anyhow.... and will most likely use big optical words I wont be able to understand.

Anyway.... one of my very few photography bucketlist things is.... to own/use a Leica rangefinder before I die. Should I wish to die soon.... then buying a $15,000 M10-p and lens or 2 would do it.... as wife would kill me.

One thing to consider is looking at a vintage Leica screw mount and some screw mount lenses. I have a '51 llf Rangefinder and an older 50mm F 3.5 collapsible Leitz lens. I've had it since the very early '80's, still works and I've always been pleased with it's image quality. When you think about it they were still making the Leica screw mount rangefinder in the early years of Leica M3 bayonet mount. Difference in cameras aside from mount, I don't know, but I bet there wasn't much difference.

The screw mount Rangefinders are generally a lot cheaper , I think because a screw mount camera is not as appealing as a bayonet Leica body.

[Sir Nameless]

Try and guess which one is which.

Ok, so no expert here. But I have a SMC "K" 50 1.4, and the bokeh balls on the second photo of each pair remind me of my 50. So the first and third are from the Summi, and the second and fourth are from your K85 is my guess.

[cpk]

Here's two sample photo sets. One in each was taken with the Summicron, one was taken with the Pentax. Both were taken adapted on my 61mp Sony A7riv. All of these are SOOC, with no edits done, except a small crop on one picture in the first comparison set to make it less obvious as to which lens it was. Shutter speed and ISO was identical between each pair of images. Both lenses were shot wide open (so 1.8 on the pentax, 2 on the summicron).

I'd say that the top one of each pair is the Summicron. I had that lens and it was very sharp wide open. I used it a lot in my flamenco nightclub photography, almost always at f2 1/60 sec.

[stevebrot]

So here's my question: for near equivalent lenses of a similar era (so I'm not comparing the SMC K lenses to modern asph Leica stuff), how do the SMC Pentax lenses compare?

I have never shot with Leitz product, but do know that in 1978 Modern Photography magazine did a "How Sharp Can You Get" shoot-out with the goal of finding the highest resolution from readily available films and highly-regarded lenses from the time. Included in the line-up were the Pentax-M 50/1.7 and Summicron 50/2.0. The short story is the Summicron led or tied for the lead for all films against competition from other 50mmm f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2.0 non-macro primes. The Pentax-M ran with the pack, but all delivering 100 lp/mm with Micro-Ektrachrome save the Summicron at 102 lp/mm. I would have loved to have seen the same lens line-up with Kodak Technical Pan.

A second group of 55mm and 60mm macro primes were also evaluated, but none from Leitz or Pentax.

PF member @Nesster has posted scans of the article on his Flickr account. The first part may be viewed at:

How Sharp Can You Get? | Nesster | Flickr

...continued at:

How Sharp Can You Get - continued | Nesster | Flickr

The important take-away, in my opinion, is that each of the lenses evaluated were considered to be the best in the world for 35mm film at the time. All on the list continue to be well-respected today. IIRC, that particular version on the Summicron has somewhat legendary status.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Example would be getting a Summicron 50/2 for the price of a A50/1.4 + K28/3.5

That would be a steal for the Summicron.

Steve

[stevebrot]

My experience (this has been posted elsewhere in these forums before):

Thanks for the concise summary of the blog post.


Steve

[stevebrot]

But the purpose of my discussion here is strictly on the Leica branded lenses themselves.

Yep...and your answer...

I could show you test charts with error bars, but as many will say the proof is in the pudding: many find the rendering from Pentax lenses to be superior.

Steve

[stevebrot]

Well, my SMC 85mm f1.8 came in yesterday, so I took it out along with the f2 90mm summicron and did a little A/B testing. So let's play a game:

Here's two sample photo sets. One in each was taken with the Summicron, one was taken with the Pentax. Both were taken adapted on my 61mp Sony A7riv. All of these are SOOC, with no edits done, except a small crop on one picture in the first comparison set to make it less obvious as to which lens it was. Shutter speed and ISO was identical between each pair of images. Both lenses were shot wide open (so 1.8 on the pentax, 2 on the summicron).

Try and guess which one is which. Obviously two pictures aren't the final say on how the two lenses compare, but this was what I was able to muster this morning. I'll let people discuss and guess for a bit before revealing the answer

To be honest, I can't really say that I am impressed with the performance or rendering of any of the examples.


Steve

[kernos]

This is interesting, but I tend to agree with the "proofs in the pudding" folks. What delights the eye is what counts in the end. There are objectively terrible lenses that under the right conditions produce wonderful results. There are well thought of lenses that render surgically and mostly don't produce delight, I'm thinking of the Sigma 70mm macro. I like Les3547's post because it gives a glimpse of what the R90 can do. It would be great to have some show and tell. I don't own any Leica lenses, but I can say that the FA77, for me produces photos with presence. So, I'll throw this one up. Let's see more Leitz photos.

[normhead]

I read an article entitled the top 10 lenses of all time. Pentax was in there with one, no one had more than two. Even some of the third party companies produced a best in class lens. I know you guys want to think you know of some company that has every one of their lenses top of class. No such company exists.

[HarisF1]

Well, my SMC 85mm f1.8 came in yesterday, so I took it out along with the f2 90mm summicron and did a little A/B testing. So let's play a game:

Here's two sample photo sets. One in each was taken with the Summicron, one was taken with the Pentax. Both were taken adapted on my 61mp Sony A7riv. All of these are SOOC, with no edits done, except a small crop on one picture in the first comparison set to make it less obvious as to which lens it was. Shutter speed and ISO was identical between each pair of images. Both lenses were shot wide open (so 1.8 on the pentax, 2 on the summicron).

Try and guess which one is which. Obviously two pictures aren't the final say on how the two lenses compare, but this was what I was able to muster this morning. I'll let people discuss and guess for a bit before revealing the answer

So, what's the correct answer?

I would have thought the K85 was used for the 1st and 3rd image.

[Fontan]

So, what's the correct answer?

I would have thought the K85 was used for the 1st and 3rd image.

I agree.