Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

100 mm league test..
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:13 pm    Post subject: 100 mm league test.. Reply with quote
I have found quite interesting test on web Smile

http://24x36.org/tests/100mm/test100mm.html


There were 4 lenses tested

1 - Nikon Nikkor 105 f2.5
2 - Contax Planar 2/100
3 - Canon Macro 2.8/100
4 - Planar 2/110 Hasseblad F mount

Nikon is GREAT in this case.

tf


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I know only Nikkor from this group, one of the best lens in this focal range in my opinion too.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!

the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass



Last edited by poilu on Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I knew there must have been something wrong... Wink Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey, its just a small detail... point of focus. Laughing
someone has a small bias? Rolling Eyes
and I dont mean its TF


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, honestly I was surprised that the Canon 100/2.8 macro didn't show better results. I used to own one -- a New FD one -- and mine was incredibly sharp.

Clearly, the Canon had the best looking out-of-focus highlights, though.

Still, I presently own a 105/2.5 Nikkor, which I love, and I'm glad to see it performed so well.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sure, Canon 100/2.8 is sharp as hell. I had one, and I have Contax 100/2 now. It's probably about as sharp, definitely not sharper. Canon's sharpness is already over the top for everything except macro work. Hell, Biotar 75/1.5 is probably half as sharp as these two. For me the main difference though is when I look at photos taken with Canon, I look at the picture, and with photos taken with Contax I am in the picture. But I know enough people who don't feel the same way.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Personally, for portraits I am finding the topcor 100/2.8 is a rival for them all Embarassed Embarassed


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi all,
I got Nikkor 105/2.5 , S-M-C 105/2.8, planar 100/2.8 makro, canon 100 macro.
I tested and I think Nikkor is not good, that why I sold Nikkor 105/2.5 .
Confused


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!

the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass



How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
poilu wrote:
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!

the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass



How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ?


Very Happy Very Happy Laughing Laughing Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to have both the Nikkor 2.5/105 and the Planar 2/100.
I rate them on the same level.
The Nikkor is maybe a bit sharper.
The Planar handles flare better and has more natural colours for portraits.
Bokeh is excellent in both.
CA is critical in both.
On Planar's advantage there is the half stop more speed
On Nikkor's advantage there is the much cheaper used price.
Due to price factor, the Nikkor represents the best buy between the two.
However if landscape shooting is more frequent than portrait, I would recommend an APO lens such as the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90,
because the CA can be critical in both Nikkor and Planar for landscape use.

P.S.please try not to embed such large images outside of galleries as it makes the reading of text quite awkward.
(I had to introduce arbitrary line breaks to keep the text readable without lateral scrolling)

P.P.S. I agree with poilu on the focusing, compare the Nikkor and Planar 100 corner crops, the Nikkor is perfectly focused, the Planar 100 is front-focused,
which you can tell by the wood stand which is sharp in the Planar 100's image and blurred in Nikkor's image.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:

How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ?


So what? Focus must be the same in all pictures that you compare, else the comparison is flawed.
It does not matter where the ideal focus is, if one of the pictures is misfocused, then all portions of it are not comparable.
In this case of the corner, the banknote falls in perfect focus in the Nikkor's image, and obviously out of focus in the Planar 100's image,
where the focus falls on the front of the wood stand.
As a result you can not usefully compare those two crops.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
sichko wrote:

How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ?


So what? Focus must be the same in all pictures that you compare, else the comparison is flawed.


Agreed. However we don't know where the photographer has focused or attempted to focus. My guess is that it's the centre of the picture - the doll's nose. If the photographer has mis-focused in one of the pictures then this will be represented in the corner crop. However if the focusing is good then other factors might be responsible for the corner performances - different curvatures of field of the different lenses for example.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This test shows exactly the same result as my own "super tests": it is not easy to test on a kitchen table! Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is the canon a EF Lens ?
surprising result


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read several times in forums that the sonnar design can be a bit sharper than the planar one. In this way, Orio said that the nikon 105/2,5 ( from a classical sonnar design in rangefinder lens to an hybrid AI-s with front elements in sonnar type and the rear element party in two - like biometar or xenotar 5 elements planars -) is a bit sharper than the planar.

Rino.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nelson wrote:
Is the canon a EF Lens ?
surprising result


Not really.

This guy has tested one copy of each lens.
Who can be sure that one of these copies was not a lemon?

Perhaps his Canon was decentered or had another fault.

Don't trust lens test that you did not bias youself. Wink

Lens test are fun, nothing more, really. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I read several times in forums that the sonnar design can be a bit sharper than the planar one. In this way, Orio said that the nikon 105/2,5 ( from a classical sonnar design in rangefinder lens to an hybrid AI-s with front elements in sonnar type and the rear element party in two - like biometar or xenotar 5 elements planars -) is a bit sharper than the planar.

Rino.


No, Rino. The 2.5/105 AI is a double gauss (planar) type.
I used to have also the pre-AI 2.5/105 which was a Sonnar type and it rendered completely different images.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.

Lucispictor

I like so much your serious test

http://lucispictor.weebly.com/80test2.html

I think that a test can be usefull. Perhaps not definitive, yes, but usefull.

Rino.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Orio
Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.


Are you sure about this?
Bjrn Rorslett states that the pre-AI is Sonnar and the AI(s) is Gauss:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
estudleon wrote:
Orio
Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.


Are you sure about this?
Bjrn Rorslett states that the pre-AI is Sonnar and the AI(s) is Gauss:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html


Nikon describe the AI as a Xenotar-type lens a modified Gauss.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TRIFOX, another great lenses are KIRON 100/2.8 and for portrait also Nikkor Serie E 100/2.8. Atomino


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't believe curvature of field at ~100mm focal length can account for the differences in in-focus areas shown in these results. Curvature of field for all these lenses is probably very similar, given that they're all about the same focal length. The Canon, being a Macro, may have the flattest, but probably not by much.

When I do a lens comparison, I am very careful to focus on the exact same spot. Anything else and the comparison is not valid.

About all this "comparison" shows me is how good the Nikkor 105's overall performance is. I suspect the performance of the other three lenses is quite a bit better than that shown, especially the Hassy's. Those images almost look as if there was camera shake. The tester should have locked up the Hassy's mirror.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon page say :This design is based on the Xenotar-type lens (5 lenses, 4 groups) with thick, convex lenses, rather than the Sonnar type with its many asymmetric components.

It's very possible that the "many assymetric components" of the sonnar could be done in one thick in the nikkor lens. Sato doesn't give to us more dates (I.R. of the group, positive-negative index, type of glass used - flint, etc-) to have a deep conclusion.

In the gauss xenotar type the second and third frontal elements are thinner than in the nikkor newer 105. The xenotar lenses haven't a "THICK" second frontal element.

Perhaps more than a xenotar or sonnar classics design, it may be a sui generis design, call it on one way or in another.

Rino.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2