I was out the other day comparing some 150mm lenses for my 6x6 cameras, and I figured I would set the M9 on the tripod and see how it did. When adjusting the contrast and curves to match and applying basic sharpening to all three, I find them to be very comparable. I love the look of film, so this is not about X is better than Y, but I found it to be wonderful how close they came. The framing is not exactly the same since I shot the 6x6 and then went back and did the M9...the M9 is a little closer, which I guess benefits it.
So, without further ado, here are the shots. Again, this was really informal and meant more for my curiosity rather than for any decisive judgements. I shoot film and digital side by side and appreciate the advantages of both.
Hasselblad 150mm f/2.8 FE at f/4:
Schneider 150mm Tele-Xenar f/4 at f/4:
Leica M9 with 75mm f/2 Summicron at f/2
And here are some crops -- I did the medium format at 50% to give a similar file size, but will include the 100% later.
Hassie at 100%:
Rollei at 100%
They were all shot on a tripod with mirror lockup and self-timer (except the rollei...I just used mirror lockup. The film was Fuji Acros developed in DD-X. Scanner was a Hasselblad X5, sharpening for all in lightroom with lots of masking and low radius. I also tested the Mamiya 150/4.5, but the focus was a bit off in this close test. It is as sharp as the Tele-Xenar though, and it was the sharpest lens in the longer distance test. Keep in mind that none of these lenses are at their best apertures for this test...the Tele-Xenar and Summicron were wide open, and the 150/2.8 was one stop down (though it is a very fast lens for medium format and will do best at f/5.6-f/11.
Anyway, maybe you guys find this interesting!