|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 18, 2016 13:48:37 GMT -5
Here's the Zorki 3.5 50mm and the leica elmar 2.8 50mm both (aging) collapsible standard lenses center @3.5 center@5.6 corner @3.5 corner @5.6 overall the elmar is a bit sharper and corners are somewhat better, though the zorki has a little bit more contrast. The elmar isn't a stellar performer and wideopen at 2.8 it was BAD!
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 21, 2016 9:38:22 GMT -5
Nikkor 135mm 1:2.8 AI and soligor 135 1:3.5 screw mount wideopen center 5.6 center wide open corner 5.6 corner The nikkor delivers from wideopen and inproves a bit @5.6 The soligor just isn't any good wideopen, inproves @5.6 but even then not enough to justify using it.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 22, 2016 7:27:33 GMT -5
This thread is becoming more like a personal blog, but if nobody minds, this is what i did today: Apart from the lenses that are actually on cameras, there are also a lot of lenses i keep in boxes scattered around the house. With a new cabinet came new space to stack them. I know just about every camera i've got in the collection, but lost track of what there was on lenses. There's a "bit" more than i tought so now is the moment to get an overview of what's in stock. With the abundance of all sorts adapters available these days it would be a challenge to try them out on digital bodies. If i was to test them all with the pace i am going now, it'll take forever. Still there might be some interesting ones i can pick out and then gradually go trough the pile. Here's a few i found, my guess it's about half of what there is, there's a lot of them still "buried" beneath other stuff.
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jun 22, 2016 9:47:14 GMT -5
Do I miss some of the good old Carl Zeiss company:-? Hans
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 22, 2016 10:18:47 GMT -5
Do I miss some of the good old Carl Zeiss company:-? Hans Yes, you do, and i do have some but they are either on cameras, or medium format ( the hasselblads) You have a sharp eye Hans, now could you name the ones that are in the picture ? :-) :-) :-)
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jun 22, 2016 13:16:21 GMT -5
Hm, a (1950-)sharp eye and a .jpg of 222k don't match too good, Francois:-) But, 2nd row right a 135mm Sonnar, Jena origin... 3rd row leftish, a Rollei QBM 50mm Planar?? A lens in the middle (100mm) I cannot bring home. (Dutch kind of English - I just love the facebook page "make that the cat wise")
Lots of Canon, Nikon, Asahi Pentax though.
Saturday we're leaving for the Lago Maggiore, and after the holiday trip I should try to picture my lenses too - although, I don't have the background tools you have, he sighs.
Hans
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 23, 2016 16:52:08 GMT -5
May I just pose a possible problem with these tests? Each lens type will have to have an adaptor. What's more to obtain infinity focussing many will have to have a supplementary lens. How do we know that the test results are the result of the lens alone?
(What needs to be done is to test each lens on an original camera, using film if necessary and then comparing results with what comes out of this test for the same lens. Unfortunately trying to approach things too scientifically results in a ridiculous amount of data. Even if you have the time to collect all the data it then has to be interpreted meaningfully. It should, of course, all be done "double blind" to prevent inherent bias for or against any particular lens or its manufacturer.)
Good stuff, though: well done for setting it up.
|
|
|
Post by camfiend on Jun 23, 2016 20:39:56 GMT -5
Its all a bit advanced for me but I do enjoy reading and seeing your results... Keep it coming
Bob
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 24, 2016 6:00:35 GMT -5
May I just pose a possible problem with these tests? Each lens type will have to have an adaptor. What's more to obtain infinity focussing many will have to have a supplementary lens. How do we know that the test results are the result of the lens alone? (What needs to be done is to test each lens on an original camera, using film if necessary and then comparing results with what comes out of this test for the same lens. Unfortunately trying to approach things too scientifically results in a ridiculous amount of data. Even if you have the time to collect all the data it then has to be interpreted meaningfully. It should, of course, all be done "double blind" to prevent inherent bias for or against any particular lens or its manufacturer.) Good stuff, though: well done for setting it up. Daveh, i'll try to awnser your questions. First and for all, i'm testing these lenses on an olympus epl 1 mft body, just because i had one laying around and i happened to have the most (lens)adapters for this camera. I'm not planning on using adapters with compensating elements in them as they are either expensive, or very poor quality and not neccesairy on the olympus because its flange distance is short enough to put on just about anything with the ability to focus at infinity. There's indeed a problem with this test as every awnser i get raises new questions, mainly in what way is lens performance affected by the camera used( and i don't mean crop factor) in a later phase i'm planning to use a few lenses on their original bodies and see how this compares with the lens on an "alien" body. Please don't take this test to serious, like you said approaching it to scientifically would get "to much" data that needs to be interpreted. I'm just passionate about photography but without taking it to the highest level i thought it would be nice to share the results of my (sometimes silly) experiments, realising they can be flawed for a number of reasons. Anyway, thanks Daveh and all others for your feedback and support. More testing results are coming up and the best in test (wich was some surprise to me) will be in one of the following posts. Stay tuned! PS. this test not only challenges the lenses but also my English writing skills i'll keep the Nederlands to English dictionary close at hand.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jun 26, 2016 15:40:10 GMT -5
Thanks for your efforts. Interesting, even though views on methods may differ.
I have found that optics with field curvature, but otherwise well corrected, may still work well. They need to be refocussed to get sharp corners for flat subjects, but can be well suited to other subjects. Still, low contrast as shown in some samples here, is a more serious shortcoming: very informative pictures. Some contrast differences may only become evident when used against the light, as will some internal reflections.
p.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 28, 2016 7:37:33 GMT -5
Now here comes the surprise (at least to me it was)comparing the leitz elmar 90 f4 to the Angenieus2x35 f2.5(zoomed out to 70mm) Two completely diffrent lenses but both with a reputation to hold up to. The elmar @f4, the angenieux @2.5, not so much diffrence in the center of the image: In the corners a dramatic diffrence, the elmar really good, the angenieux bad! Both at f5.6 center elmar good and somewhat better than the angenieux Corners at f5.6 elmar incredibly good and best of test, angenieux very bad to a point i tought it was a mistake. Please keep in mind all of the lenses tested were in their design not corrected to shoot flat surfaces (for that you would need real macro lenses) so a bad result dosn't mean the lens will not perform well in real life situations. It is also a very mixed bag, a nikkor 1:1.2 is clearly made for other purposes than say a angenieux 2x35 so depending on what you plan to use the les for one might be prefered over the other for reasons other than just sharpness. I was amazed by the "old" screw mount 90 leitz elmar, strangely the elmar 50 was nowhere near as good as the 90. Canon and angenieux will be subject to further examination because of inconsistent results. The soligor 135 was the worst in test, a bit surprisingly as i know they made some really good lenses for miranda.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 28, 2016 14:06:54 GMT -5
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jun 29, 2016 10:43:10 GMT -5
Again, I admire your choice of the objects... Spent too much time in the Senne vallei... ciao, Hans
More to the subject, again the Planar looks very good, but 1,8 only. Now the Canon 1,2 holds well against the Nikkor.
|
|