although i can see the pictures on my computer, some people reported to me that they can't on theirs, so here is another try:

leica m6ttl, tri-x @ 400iso in ilford ID11 1+1 for 11 minutes, both pictures taken at f=2.8 on a tripod at a distance of about 2m. i had to crop them a bit otherwise i would give it away, which lens is which. they were scannes with a nikon coolscan IV at full resolution, no photoshop adjustments except resizing were done

go here for a larger picture:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=729566&size=lg

AND

go here for a larger picture:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=729569&size=lg

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002

Answers

doesn't work mate

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

picture A

picture B

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Stefan, the suspense is killing me!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 02, 2002.

Stefan.

picture A: This photo doesn't exist or its owner has disabled public viewing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ picture B:This photo doesn't exist or its owner has disabled public viewing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What are you doing, cos something's up?

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), May 02, 2002.

i am such a dumb ass. now i hope it should work. otherwise i give up.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Stefan,

pic b does work, but not so a. But go on ;-)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), May 02, 2002.

maybe now?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

If these are current lenses I would say a: Elmar; b: Summilux.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 02, 2002.

Both pictures come up for me.

To be honest both pictures look good and I do not understand what your point is for the comparison. They are different lenses with different fingerprints.

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), May 02, 2002.

Assuming these are full frame prints, and since the Elmar has a slightly smaller field of view than the Summilux, that answer is obvious...

Photo a -- Elmar Photo b -- Summilux

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 02, 2002.

dan: they are a bit cropped (by about 10%) to cut away the markings i did to find my way through my negatives. ths angle of view doesn't give it away.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

I'm not understanding the point of the comparison, really. These lenses are apples and oranges, given their very different sizes and maximum apertures, and I think few people would be trying to choose between them.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), May 02, 2002.

THE SOLUTION:

Picture A: summilux

picture B: Elmar

my conclusion: the elmar has more contrast at f2, looks a bit sharper, but the summilux renders out of focus in a nicer way and therefore it is easier with that lens to use selective focus.

i am happy to own both of them and hope to never do such a dull thing like comparing 'apples with oranges' again. as soon as you step them down, the difference dissappears to my eyes.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Like everyone one else, I guessed A: Elmar, because B just looks to have a lot more clarity. But if B is the Elmar, then I can tell you one thing, I'm never getting rid of mine.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

Hi stefan,

Can you tell me which version is the Elmar? I like mine Elmar ( alst version) and like it even more after seeing this side by side comparsion. Thanks for such effort, I am doing about the same to my summilux ASPH 35 and 35'con alst version as well.

-- joseph (jose_phla@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

I am not dissagreing, but it seems to me that Leicaland is the only place where comparing two 50mm prime lenses can be characterized as "apples and oranges." :-)

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 02, 2002.

Sharpness looks about equal; Elmar-M has more contrast. Elmar is newer and has the benefit of latest glass formulas. Nice tests. Too bad you do not have the latest 50 Summicron & the Noctilux.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

Elmar-M = B. Wow that's a surprise, could have sworn it was the other way around! The next test you do, suggest you try to shoot into some strong light source to see how well the lenses handle flare - I got rid of my Elmar-M because every time it went near the sun the whole frame would wash out.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 02, 2002.

the apple and orange thing is not true, in my case. when i look for a new lens i compare all available in my wanted focal range, and therefore they are very comparable. this was the second film i shot with the elmar, which is by the way the latest version. i just have it for a bit more than a week now. the lux is less than half a year old. i really like 50mm as a focal length, but the lux is a bit on the large and heavy side. i expected the lux blowing the elmar away, especially wide open (okay, 2.8). i bought it as a portable alternative on sunny days, where i cannot use a wide aperture anyway. my test showed me that i gain some contrast with it. i will keep the lux though, as 2.8 is often too slow.

regarding flare, yesterday i went to the mayday demonstrations (see my other posting), a bitght sunny day, and used my elmar extensively, without the hood. i didn't have any problems with flare. might have been lucky though

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

A:Horrible bokeh! That's it, my Summilux is history, Ebay here it comes! Ive been waiting for an excuse to dump it

MarcoG

-- Marco Grande (hektor73@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

one thing which i still don't understand is why the background of the summilux picture looks more out of focus at the same aperture. in the elmar shot you can make out details of the windowframes, which disappear in the lux picture. can anyone explain? is it possible that the 2.8 of the elmar is not a true 2.8, but rather a 3.0 or so? that could also explain why the elmar shot looks slightly darker (or is it just more contrasty?)

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

dear ALL,

sorry to get in this late. Just to say that my guess was

a=Summilux and b=Elmar

my reason was because the OOF white and black lines, on the right of the right-hand-most empty pot, are "fatter". The more obvious ones are those just below the inserted blowups of both photos.

i did mentioned before about my posting on:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007miX

To say in short, i felt that when shooting at the same aperture of f2.8, the OOF portion of a photo taken by a 50/1.4 should be "softer" than one taken by a 50/2.8 Look at the 3 blobs of white above the 2 plants. Just MHO.

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), May 02, 2002.

Just to add, i believe it has to do with the dia. of the lens opening. 50/1.4 = 35.7 while 50/2.8 = 17.9

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), May 02, 2002.

Stefan,

You wrote, "my conclusion: the elmar has more contrast at f2"

Did you mean at f/2.8? The Elmar doesn't open to f/2.

Thanks for the tests, Stefan. The Elmar held up pretty well, eh? BTW, a Summicron would give the best of both worlds, IMHO.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 02, 2002.