Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:40 pm    Post subject: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! Reply with quote

Here is a test I did earlier this year, it took some time but now it's all done and uploaded.
As we all know normal lenses come in many shapes and forms. Every camera maker made a whole bunch of them. They usually have 3-7 lens elements. Most of us have our own favorites. The question is, do I have too much free time... Wink Sorry The question is, are there any differences and if so how big? This test is centered around wide open aperture characteristics.

Camera: Sony A7 on tripod.
White balance: manual. Differences in color are due to the lenses.

Subject: My grandmother, thanks for staying perfectly still!

Conclusions: Check the end of the post.

Enjoy!


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


#11


#12


#13


#14


#15


#16


#17


#18


#19


#20


#21


#22


#23


#24


#25


#26


#27


#28


#29


#30


#31


#32


#33


#34


#35


#36


#37


#38


#39


#40


#41


#42



Conclusions.

The older Auto Takumar and newer SMC Takumar show very small differences.

The Zenitar has noticeably more background blur than the other f/1.7 lenses, maybe it is closer to f/1.6

The Singapore Rollei planar has more red colors then the German version. By taste, the Singapore wins.

The Olympus f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses has some of the most chaotic bokeh. But, it may not be noticeable here. However, they have incredible 3d pop/micro contrast or whatever you want to call it. Some kind of magic going on, similar to the Zeiss magic.

The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.

In the battle of the wider primes, Hexanon vs Rokkor. The 45mm Rokkor has the edge over the 40mm Hexanon in bokeh quality. Both are great otherwise.

Interesting Meyer results. The older zebra version has more bokeh edge highlights. I recommend this version for crazier bokeh.

My Helios 103 has low contrast, could be an adapter issue.


My personal favorites, not ranked:

Rollei Planar 50mm f/1.8
C/Y Planar 50mm f/1.4
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2
Olympus 50mm f/1.4
Olympus 55mm f/1.2
X-Fujinon 55mm f/1.6
Macro Takumar 50mm f/4
Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra
Helios 103

If you want to see 100% crops from any lens just ask and I will serve!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off, many thanks for the effort. This post must have taken quite a bit of time (and that's not even including the time to set the camera/lenses up and taking the photos).

No Nikon lenses? I would've loved to see how the 50/1.2, and maybe even 55/1.2, would perform vis à vis the others.

The Riconar's performance is embarrassing.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

invisible wrote:
First off, many thanks for the effort. This post must have taken quite a bit of time (and that's not even including the time to set the camera/lenses up and taking the photos).

No Nikon lenses? I would've loved to see how the 50/1.2, and maybe even 55/1.2, would perform vis à vis the others.

The Riconar's performance is embarrassing.


Thank you! The worst part was to carry all of the lenses outside and then back in again Smile

I don't have much from Nikon unfortunately. In the beginning I chose Konica and Minolta for low prices. And now I'm mostly covered when it comes to focal lengths. The 55mm f/1.2 would be interesting to try though.

The Riconar is fun. Stopped down and longer distances works like you'd expect but close up at 2.2 is really dreamy. I think they din't even bother to compute the design Very Happy
Check the interesting effect here: http://forum.mflenses.com/riconar-55mm-f-2-2-t77166.html


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like Dog

great project!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool test, thanks for sharing!

The Zenitar holds up very nicely in this bunch.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting, thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure the Rokkor 55/1.7 is very nice. To my eyes Zenitar-M 50/1.7 and Takumars 1.8 are also pleasing.

Thanks for the test.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:21 pm    Post subject: Thanks Reply with quote

Thanks for taking the time and sharing. Were these shot same day? Reason I am asking is that your comparison is also good for color rendition.

Since you like trying different 50s I have to suggest the Zeiss Ultron Concave 50 1.8.... As a recent post points out its a different animal and is now my favorite 50, my Porst 50 F1.2 is number two and used when I want dreamy, then the Alpa Macro, and my under used Topcons.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

awesome test. Reminded me Fujinon F2.2 is such a fun lens. And 1.6/55mm should also be used more. That Riconar is defect. Zuiko 1.2 should perform better. One Oreston has minor fault or haze.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well done Thank you!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Happy Dog


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks everyone!

Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time and sharing. Were these shot same day? Reason I am asking is that your comparison is also good for color rendition.

Since you like trying different 50s I have to suggest the Zeiss Ultron Concave 50 1.8.... As a recent post points out its a different animal and is now my favorite 50, my Porst 50 F1.2 is number two and used when I want dreamy, then the Alpa Macro, and my under used Topcons.


Shot the same day but unfortunately the clouds moved away at the end so there were mixed light. I'd like to have that Ultron, but assumed it was very expensive. Just checked the bay and yep, expensive!

The Porst is very nice agreed!




Pancolart wrote:
awesome test. Reminded me Fujinon F2.2 is such a fun lens. And 1.6/55mm should also be used more. That Riconar is defect. Zuiko 1.2 should perform better. One Oreston has minor fault or haze.


Thank you. I love the Fujinons, learned about them on this site! Can you confirm that the Riconar is defect? All samples I have seen online looks like this.

The old (zebra) Oreston has some particles in that may interfere. What is wrong with the Zuiko?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was scrolling down thinking "that's nice" "I've got that" and generally thinking that it would be hard to tell which lens could be recognized from the pictures alone, then along came the Fujinon 55 / 2.2, which is unmistakable, and a riot of bubble bokeh. I rarely use mine, but I'd never sell the damn thing, it's far too much fun.

I agree with your list of favourites, although I haven't got the Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra, Helios 103 or the Olympus 55mm f/1.2

The Takumar 50 / 4 Macro is an exceptional lens, who cares if its slow?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I picked my ultron up for about 175 as it was part of a poorly described Icarex kit. Not cheap but a great lens...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for sharing your test.
A similar comparison is still on my "to do"-list as the effort is rather huge because my collection of lenses in this focal length is quite big as well.
Up to now I only managed it to do it with some "fast" fifties as can be seen here: http://forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-fast-50s-t76796.html
As your test shows it's quite interesting to include slower lenses and even macro lenses or zooms.
However, I am still not clear about the best test scenario which would show the different lens characteristics best. But at least I will think about once more..... Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject: Re: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:

The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.


I dunno, I think the Auto Rokkor 55mm f/1.8 had an impressive showing. Some of the softest bokeh of the lot -- if not the softest.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:54 pm    Post subject: Re: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
Conclusions.

The older Auto Takumar and newer SMC Takumar show very small differences.

The Zenitar has noticeably more background blur than the other f/1.7 lenses, maybe it is closer to f/1.6

The Singapore Rollei planar has more red colors then the German version. By taste, the Singapore wins.

The Olympus f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses has some of the most chaotic bokeh. But, it may not be noticeable here. However, they have incredible 3d pop/micro contrast or whatever you want to call it. Some kind of magic going on, similar to the Zeiss magic.

The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.

In the battle of the wider primes, Hexanon vs Rokkor. The 45mm Rokkor has the edge over the 40mm Hexanon in bokeh quality. Both are great otherwise.

Interesting Meyer results. The older zebra version has more bokeh edge highlights. I recommend this version for crazier bokeh.

My Helios 103 has low contrast, could be an adapter issue.


My personal favorites, not ranked:

Rollei Planar 50mm f/1.8
C/Y Planar 50mm f/1.4
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2
Olympus 50mm f/1.4
Olympus 55mm f/1.2
X-Fujinon 55mm f/1.6
Macro Takumar 50mm f/4
Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra
Helios 103

If you want to see 100% crops from any lens just ask and I will serve!


Great test, great work. Hats off to you.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I was scrolling down thinking "that's nice" "I've got that" and generally thinking that it would be hard to tell which lens could be recognized from the pictures alone, then along came the Fujinon 55 / 2.2, which is unmistakable, and a riot of bubble bokeh. I rarely use mine, but I'd never sell the damn thing, it's far too much fun.

I agree with your list of favourites, although I haven't got the Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra, Helios 103 or the Olympus 55mm f/1.2

The Takumar 50 / 4 Macro is an exceptional lens, who cares if its slow?


You got good taste! Yes the 2.2/55 is easy to spot haha!

Some say the Olympus 55mm f/1.2 is the worst 1.2 lens. And I understand those who think so but don't agree. It just has the most character! A good thing to consider when shopping for a 1.2. My copy is in great condition and preform as I expected but it might be something wrong with it according to Pancolart, and that might be the case.

Oh yes the Macro Takumar is so nice. I use it every time for product photography and general macro. My other macros are the nFD 50mm f/3.5, Hexanon 55mm 3.5 and Rokkor 50mm f/3.5. But the Takumar is my favorite, and the Rokkor the opposite. It is good at macro but quite soft at non macro.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gatorengineer64 wrote:
I picked my ultron up for about 175 as it was part of a poorly described Icarex kit. Not cheap but a great lens...


Not bad! I'd change my 184 EUR turd Prakticar 1.4/50 for that in a heartbeat!


tb_a wrote:
Thank you for sharing your test.
A similar comparison is still on my "to do"-list as the effort is rather huge because my collection of lenses in this focal length is quite big as well.
Up to now I only managed it to do it with some "fast" fifties as can be seen here: http://forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-fast-50s-t76796.html
As your test shows it's quite interesting to include slower lenses and even macro lenses or zooms.
However, I am still not clear about the best test scenario which would show the different lens characteristics best. But at least I will think about once more..... Wink


I'm glad people seems to enjoy it!
That's a nice smaller test you've done. Plan to have the whole day free for a big test. I was inspired by another member here that made a great test in the garden with several f/1.2 lenses. Can't remember who unfortunately. There is also the indoor version. It's best to use a big room. Put up a good subject and small lights, Christmas lighting for example in the background that will reveal the bokeh quality.


cooltouch wrote:
blotafton wrote:

The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.


I dunno, I think the Auto Rokkor 55mm f/1.8 had an impressive showing. Some of the softest bokeh of the lot -- if not the softest.


I wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a blind test. Both are good bokeh-makers. I need to put them to more use!


sergun wrote:


Great test, great work. Hats off to you.


Thanks man!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for this comprehensive test!

The Zenitar 50 1,7 has very smooth bokeh, as mentioned. Interesting to see the difference between the Rokkor 58 1,4 older versions and newest version. Sharpness for bokeh. Kind if like the Rokkor 58 1,2 vs the 50 1,2 (which I would have liked to see in the comparison - you can't have everything though Smile .


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work, that Macro Takumar preset is really a hell of a lens, despite its age.

Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having a Minolta MC 50 f1.7 and MD 45 f2 and being on the lookout for a 55 f1.7 this really is an interesting comparison. For me it makes me questioning getting a MC 55 f1.7 (prices are going up at the moment), because the difference (focal length aside) is a lot less than I thought.

I'm also surprised by the MD 45 - it's no portrait lens but outstanding concerning it's class in it's time (cheap, plasticky normal-lens). As a normal lens I also like the 45mm focal length better than 50mm. And it's very lightweight, too (if only the adaptor would be lighter as well!).


PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spokklocka wrote:
Thanks for this comprehensive test!

The Zenitar 50 1,7 has very smooth bokeh, as mentioned. Interesting to see the difference between the Rokkor 58 1,4 older versions and newest version. Sharpness for bokeh. Kind if like the Rokkor 58 1,2 vs the 50 1,2 (which I would have liked to see in the comparison - you can't have everything though Smile .


If someone gives me 50mm f/1.2 Rokkor I promise to test it Very Happy

And about the 1.4/58 Rokkors. The "old" is the Auto Rokkor and "new" is the MC Rokkor.



quidam wrote:
Nice work, that Macro Takumar preset is really a hell of a lens, despite its age.

Thank you!


It sure is! Cheers!


Big R wrote:
Having a Minolta MC 50 f1.7 and MD 45 f2 and being on the lookout for a 55 f1.7 this really is an interesting comparison. For me it makes me questioning getting a MC 55 f1.7 (prices are going up at the moment), because the difference (focal length aside) is a lot less than I thought.

I'm also surprised by the MD 45 - it's no portrait lens but outstanding concerning it's class in it's time (cheap, plasticky normal-lens). As a normal lens I also like the 45mm focal length better than 50mm. And it's very lightweight, too (if only the adaptor would be lighter as well!).


Yes the differences in bokeh is small in the majority of the test. When considering other things, your 50mm Rokkor probably has better coating than the 55.

The 45mm is great as well, just move a bit closer and you got a portrait lens! It even works well on the new medium format fuji!
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for sharing the test, it's very useful. I like the look of the Zuiko 50/1.4s the most in these images. Also the 103. The look of the Rokkor 50s is a bit strong for me. I didn't see a picture made with a Rokkor 45/2 but it's a lens I do use quite often and is very good.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm glad you liked it!


Image #15 is the MD Rokkor 45mm f/2