 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: 50-58mm lens test |
 |
|
Hi all,
I friend of mine have borrowed me the Voigtlndr Nokton 58mm f/1.4 made by Cosina and I decided to compare this lens with my other 50-58mm lenses.
The lenses I own and are included in this non scientific test are as follows:
Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (by Komine)
Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2
Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7
Helios-77M-4 50mm f/1.8
The scene setup looks like this:
Following are the crops at various aperture settings:
To see the 100% crops click here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_00e422b3be_o.jpg
"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_1034fd0382_b.jpg"
To see the 100% crops click here:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_dbfce25d7c_o.jpg
"http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_55f31b86ef_b.jpg"
At wide open I am not really impressed by the Nokton lens made by Cosina. But the bokeh looks very good.
I am surprised by Helios-44M-4 wide open compared to Nokton. The Helios is one of the cheapest M42 lenses available today.
The Vivitar 55mm macro is very sharp even from wide open, I just love it.
Started thinking why should I spend more on expensive lenses when I can do similar with less.
Anyway I would love to see your comments. 
Cheers,
Voe
_________________
Body: Pentax K10D Prime lenses: Mir-1, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7,Mamyia Secor 55mm f/1.8, MC Pentacon 50mm 1.8, Helios-77M-4, Helios-44-2, Volna-9, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1), Jupiter-9, Jupiter-37A MC, Tair-3S.
Last edited by voe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:58 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 10940
Location: West Emilia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: 50-58mm lens test |
|
|
Quoting Voe's post to have the pictures shown
| voe wrote: | Hi all,
I friend of mine have borrowed me the Voigtlndr Nokton 58mm f/1.4 made by Cosina and I decided to compare this lens with my other 50-58mm lenses.
The lenses I own and are included in this non scientific test are as follows:
Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (by Komine)
Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2
Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7
Helios-77M-4 50mm f/1.8
The scene setup looks like this:
Following are the crops at various aperture settings:
To see the 100% crops click here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_00e422b3be_o.jpg
To see the 100% crops click here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_dbfce25d7c_o.jpg
At wide open I am not really impressed by the Nokton lens made by Cosina. But the bokeh look very good.
I am impressed by Helios-44M-4 wide open compared to Nokton. This is one of the cheapest M42 lenses available today.
The Vivitar 55mm macro is very sharp even from wide open, I just love this lens.
Started thinking why should I spend more on expensive lenses when I can do similar with less.
Anyway I would love to see your comments.
Cheers,
Voe |
_________________
_
ХОРИОС-61 ( ώρεος ) : Lens sana in corpore sano
Main Tools:
LENSES: Russian, Zeiss, Leitz, old Nikkors.
DSLR: Canon 5D, 400D. SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM, Nikon FM2, Canon 50E, Contax 167MT.
RANGEFINDERS: Contax G2, Canonette QL17. MEDIUM FORMAT: Pentacon 6, Zeiss Super Ikonta.
Read Full List HERE
www.timelessphotography.eu
www.oriofoto.net
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " (George Orwell)
_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 6821
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Really an extensive test with a lot of work involved.
What would be your "ranking"?
_________________
"Schnäppchenjäger" | "KAPCTEH" | "Karusutenu" | "Carsten" | T-shirt?
Cams in use: EOS 40D, EOS 350D, EOS500, Spotmatic SPII, Yashica-24, EXA I & 1c, Zenit EM; Oly 35RC,Minolta Hi-Matic E & F, Ricoh 500RF, Yashica Electro 35 GS, FED-3b and some others...
Lenses in use: Asahi Pentax: 2.8/28;3.5/35;1.4/50;1.7/50;2.8/105;28-80 | Canon (AF):1.8/50;17-85;75-300 | Former GDR: Pentacon 3.5/30; Pentaflex 1.8/50; CZJ 2.8/50; CZJ 4/135; Pentacon 4/200 | Fujinon: 43-75 | Hanimex: 3.5/23; 4/100;80-200 | Hoya: 25-42;80-205 | Kiron: 2/28;70-210 | Leica: Elmarit-R 2.8/35 | Minolta: 1.7/50 | Nikkor: 2.8/24;2/35;2/50;1.2/55;1.8/85;3.5/135 | West German: Ludwig 2.9/50; Meyer 2.8/100; Will 4.5/105; Enna 3.5/135; Zeiss 4/135;Isco 4/135; Enna 4.5/240 | Olympus: 3.5/28;1.4/50;3.5/135 | Rikenon: 1.7/50;35-70 | Rollei/Voigtländer: 1.4/55;1.8/50 | Russian: Peleng3.5/8; Zenitar2.8/16; MIR2.8/37; Volna2.8/50; Industar3.5/50; Industar3.5/5cm; Helios2/50; Helios2/58; Volna2.8/80; Jupiter2/85; Kaleinar2.8/100;Tair2.8/135; Jupiter3.5/135; Jupiter4/135; Telear3.5/200; Jupiter4/200; Tair4.5/300;RF: Jupiter2.8/35;Industar2.8/53 | Sigma: 28-85;28-105(AF);17-70(AF) | Soligor: 28-105;35-200;70-220 | Tamron: 2.5/24;2.5/135;2.8/135;60-300;70-210 | Tokina: 28-105;80-200;12-24(AF);70-210(AF) | Vivitar: 3.5/17;2/24;2/28;2.5/28;2.8/28 | Yashica: 1.7/50;2/5cm | Other Japanese: Cosina3.8/20; Petri2.8/28; Albinar2.8/28; Porst1.8/35; 2.8/135; Weltblick3.5/135; Beroflex 8/500; Spiratone28-200; Maginon70-210
Green are the lenses I shoot the most.
More? http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 10940
Location: West Emilia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Starting from the premise that I don't believe in this kind of tests anymore (experience has proved for me that it's only in real use that you can evaluate a lens), based on what I see, I place what I see coming from the Nokton lens several units of appreciation above the other lenses.
_________________
_
ХОРИОС-61 ( ώρεος ) : Lens sana in corpore sano
Main Tools:
LENSES: Russian, Zeiss, Leitz, old Nikkors.
DSLR: Canon 5D, 400D. SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM, Nikon FM2, Canon 50E, Contax 167MT.
RANGEFINDERS: Contax G2, Canonette QL17. MEDIUM FORMAT: Pentacon 6, Zeiss Super Ikonta.
Read Full List HERE
www.timelessphotography.eu
www.oriofoto.net
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " (George Orwell)
_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 13821
Location: Budapest,Hungary
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am behind Orio, this is a lot of work for nothing... Welcome to aboard! Nice to see you here and thank you for sharing this information with us!
_________________
Olympus E-1,Nikon FA,Pentax MX,Praktica VLC3,Olympus-OM2N,Yashica Eletro 35 GN,Exakta Varex IIb,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Zeiss Jena:Flektogon 2.8/20mm,4/25mm,2.4/35,2.8/65mm,4.5/4cm Tessar
Pancolar 1.4/55mm,1.8/50mm,1.8/80mm,Tessar 2.8/50mm,Biotar 2/58mm,1.5/75mm,1.5/7,5cm
Carl Zeiss: Sonnar 2.8/135,2.8/180mm,Tessar 4/135mm
Nikon: 3.5/20mm,2.8/28mm,1.4/35mm,1.4/50mm,1.2/50mm,2/50mm,1.8/105mm,2.5/105mm,2.8/180mm,4/200mm macro,4.5/300mm
Pentax: Pentax 1.2/50mm,1.8/85mm,4/200mm
Helios: Helios-40 1.5/8,5cm,Helios-44-1 2/58mm,Helios-44-2 2/58mm
Olympus OM: 3.5/18mm,3.5/21mm,1.4/50mm,3.5/55mm macro,2.8/135mm,2/90mm macro,35-70mm,60-250mm
Meyer: 4.5/35mm Primagon,Primoplan 1.9/58mm,1.9/75mm,2.8/100mm,Orestegor 2.8/135mm,4.5/40 Helioplan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LucisPictor wrote: | Really an extensive test with a lot of work involved.
What would be your "ranking"? |
Hi Carsten,
Thank you for your feedback.
From a quick inspection I can say that even at wide open the USSR lenses do not show any PF or CA but are sharp enough. Not so for the Nokton until f/2.8. The Pentax shows some PF or CA at f/1.7 but is completely gone by f/2.
At f/1.7 (for the Pentax) and f/1.8 (for Nokton and Helios-77M-4) the Pentax lens has the best sharpness according to my eyes. In regards to PF at wide open the Helios wins hands down.
The way I see it, stopped down from f/2.8 most of the lenses perform very well, the difference sharpness wise is negligible to the naked eye. The next level which I am not going to go is to run a MTF resolution tests. The result from a MTF test will show the hardly noticeable differences between the lenses which in real world photo shooting is not as important as other factor in photography like light, composition, decisive moment, etc..
Cheers,
Voe
_________________
Body: Pentax K10D Prime lenses: Mir-1, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7,Mamyia Secor 55mm f/1.8, MC Pentacon 50mm 1.8, Helios-77M-4, Helios-44-2, Volna-9, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1), Jupiter-9, Jupiter-37A MC, Tair-3S.
Last edited by voe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: My impression |
|
|
Hi all,
I started this test at around 3pm and the sun position was shifting during the whole test this is why you might notice the harsh highlights in the background of the Nokton test.
The test was done on a tripod using two seconds delay and using a remote cable shutter to get rid of any camera shake. I managed to obtain the most exact focus with any lens so I will not do injustice to a lens being out of focus.
To my understanding everything except the sun light was in a controlled environment.
The test should be real because the objects in the setup scene are real using real lenses in natural light environment.
After the test I did not have enough time to inspect each and every crop to see wich one is better but I noticed that in the wide open shots the Nokton did not do better that the Helios, this was the biggest surprise for me. I knew from shooting various subjects that the Nokton has lots of PF/CA (whatever you want to call it) when the lens is wide open. Only when it is well above f/2.8 and further the PF or CA dissapears. Unless the lens is faulty (which I doubt) for me there is no reason to put the Nokton wide open sharpness quality on a level much higher than the rest of the el cheapo lenses.
Bokeh wise it is a different story. Arguably the Nokton has the best bokeh (maybe Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 is as good, but it is a matter of personal taste) among my tested lenses.
Sharpness for the Nokton from f/2.8 and on is getting to a very good level but nothing the other lenses cannot do.
I see where Orio is coming from when he says that he puts Nokton on a much higher level than the rest. If I have invested in expensive glass it would hurt me to see that something cheaper out there performs at least as good as my expensive lens sharpness wise. But a very good example for this is the case with my Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited which is considered to be the best lens money can buy by the famous photography writer Mike Johnston in his article at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml. The FA 77mm Limited has a glorious bokeh, one of the best if not the best I have seen from any lens.
The lens has its drawbacks like any other lens, but for what it was created, it performs more that great. When I compared this lens with my newly acquired Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 I was surprised to see that at f/2.8 and f/4 the Juputer-9 was sharper.
There was no PF or CA on the Jupiter-9 shots at all. The FA 77mm Limited had PF or CA until it went past f/3.5
_________________
Body: Pentax K10D Prime lenses: Mir-1, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7,Mamyia Secor 55mm f/1.8, MC Pentacon 50mm 1.8, Helios-77M-4, Helios-44-2, Volna-9, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1), Jupiter-9, Jupiter-37A MC, Tair-3S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1690
Location: Western Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
If this was the only test ever made, and was the most accurate ever made, then based on what I'm seeing, the Pentax wins easily.
Thank you for putting out the effort for this! As you indicated, it's not a scientific test, but it still is very nice to see some comparisons.
_________________
Using: M42 lens system
Using: Contaflex 126 system
Using: Mamiya RB67 Pro-S system
Cameras in Use: Yashica Mat 124, Revueflex 3003, Yashica Electro 35, Pentax K110D, Contaflex 126, Mamiya RB67 Pro-S
Lenses in Use: Zeiss Tele-Tessar 135/2.8, Industar 50/3.5, Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8, Zeiss Distagon 32/2.8, Tamron SP 35-80, Tamron SP 70-210, Soligor Macro 35-70, Vivitar 100-300, Mamiya-Sekor 65/4.5, CZJ Flektogon 20/4, Zeiss Pantar 45/2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 10940
Location: West Emilia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:26 am Post subject: Re: My impression |
|
|
| voe wrote: |
I see where Orio is coming from when he says that he puts Nokton on a much higher level than the rest. If I have invested in expensive glass it would hurt me to see that something cheaper out there performs at least as good as my expensive lens sharpness wise. |
My consideration has nothing to do with the price of the lenses. One of my preferred lenses is a Eur 7 Jupiter-37.
From the samples you made, I prefer the Nokton because I can not see any significant differences sharpness wise with the other lenses at the same aperture, while the bokehs are worlds apart.
Of course mine is a personal preference and in no way pretending to be a truth for anyone else outside me.
Also this preference is based solely on your test image, so I am ready to change my mind completely in front of normal application pictures that would show a different quality result.
| Quote: | | The test should be real because the objects in the setup scene are real using real lenses in natural light environment. |
Ok, it seems I need to elaborate the concept further. I didn't mean that your objects or lights aren't real. What I mean is that this is not what the lenses were planned and made for. They are made to be used to take "real" photographs of people, trees, buildings, mountains, where real means "not test". I say this because I used to make this kind of tests a lot in the past, lose many days over them, only to find out that maybe the lens that appeared the "winner" in the test, was significantly less pleasing than a lower rated lens when taking a "real" photograph - maybe because the focus distance was different, maybe because the multi coating did not stop a flare, maybe because it's just the visual output as the whole that did not look enough pleasing.
In the end it all boils down to the fact that such tests are never complete and never exhaustive enough to tell all the important things about a lens. A typical example, a lens that works great focused at infinite, may work bad when focused close up. So if you only test close up, you risk to miss a big part of the story.
_________________
_
ХОРИОС-61 ( ώρεος ) : Lens sana in corpore sano
Main Tools:
LENSES: Russian, Zeiss, Leitz, old Nikkors.
DSLR: Canon 5D, 400D. SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM, Nikon FM2, Canon 50E, Contax 167MT.
RANGEFINDERS: Contax G2, Canonette QL17. MEDIUM FORMAT: Pentacon 6, Zeiss Super Ikonta.
Read Full List HERE
www.timelessphotography.eu
www.oriofoto.net
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " (George Orwell)
_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: My impression |
|
|
| Orio wrote: |
Of course mine is a personal preference and in no way pretending to be a truth for anyone else outside me.
Also this preference is based solely on your test image, so I am ready to change my mind completely in front of normal application pictures that would show a different quality result.
Ok, it seems I need to elaborate the concept further. I didn't mean that your objects or lights aren't real. What I mean is that this is not what the lenses were planned and made for. They are made to be used to take "real" photographs of people, trees, buildings, mountains, where real means "not test". |
If you look carefully at the Nokton center crops between f/1.4 and f/2 and compare them with the f/1.7-f/2 for the Pentax, f/1.8-f/2 of the Helios-77M-4 and f/2 of Helios-44M you will see what I am talking about.
So does it mean that even if do a comparative test by shooting trees or buildings the fact that I call it a test makes the resulting images not valid to make a point how a lens performs in a certain situation? I know this lens is probably designed to be a portrait lens, but it does not mean I have to use it only for that.
When somebody has to pay around $400USD for a modern and fast aperture lens one would expect to beat a 20-30 year old cheap lens that cost the same amount as a nice dinner for two.
Maybe Cosina should have put out a disclaimer saying that the lens is not designed to photograph shiny and contrasty objects between apertures f/1.4 and f/2. (just kidding but I hope you get my point 
Cheers,
Voe
_________________
Body: Pentax K10D Prime lenses: Mir-1, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7,Mamyia Secor 55mm f/1.8, MC Pentacon 50mm 1.8, Helios-77M-4, Helios-44-2, Volna-9, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1), Jupiter-9, Jupiter-37A MC, Tair-3S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 2636
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
welcome voe,
I don't see difference between the lens
I don't even see difference between the stops
I would prefer the nokton because it open at 1.4
_________________
Have a nice day
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| poilu wrote: | welcome voe,
I don't see difference between the lens
I don't even see difference between the stops
I would prefer the nokton because it open at 1.4 |
1. That is my point, I hardly see a difference above f/4.
2. If you look closely and watch for the DoF you will spot the difference.
3. Of couse not a perfect f/1.4 is better than no f/1.4 at all, but ask your self this question.. in practice if f/1.7 is not enough for you to take the shot, how much better would the f/1.4 be? It is basically half a stop.
If you ask me, I would rather have sharp f/1.7 that I can rely on than unsharp f/1.4, but that is just me.
_________________
Body: Pentax K10D Prime lenses: Mir-1, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7,Mamyia Secor 55mm f/1.8, MC Pentacon 50mm 1.8, Helios-77M-4, Helios-44-2, Volna-9, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1), Jupiter-9, Jupiter-37A MC, Tair-3S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 10940
Location: West Emilia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Re: My impression |
|
|
| voe wrote: |
Maybe Cosina should have put out a disclaimer saying that the lens is not designed to photograph shiny and contrasty objects between apertures f/1.4 and f/2. (just kidding but I hope you get my point
Cheers,
Voe |
Well, the fact that there are expensive lenses that perform badly, and cheap lenses that perform very well, is a fact.
I am not contesting the results of your test, I'm just saying that as far as I am personally concerned (and I don't pretend my position to be good for everyone), I don't rely on this kind of tests to judge a lens anymore. Since I buy lenses to take photographs, I prefer to judge a lens from the photographs that it takes, and not from a test. It is possible that when used "on the field", a lens reveals other qualities more important than a defect that emerges from a test. Or is it possible that it confirms to be a bad lens. In any case, I always want to give any lens a chance to do its job before I dismiss it.
_________________
_
ХОРИОС-61 ( ώρεος ) : Lens sana in corpore sano
Main Tools:
LENSES: Russian, Zeiss, Leitz, old Nikkors.
DSLR: Canon 5D, 400D. SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM, Nikon FM2, Canon 50E, Contax 167MT.
RANGEFINDERS: Contax G2, Canonette QL17. MEDIUM FORMAT: Pentacon 6, Zeiss Super Ikonta.
Read Full List HERE
www.timelessphotography.eu
www.oriofoto.net
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " (George Orwell)
_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 6821
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: Re: My impression |
|
|
| Orio wrote: | | I am not contesting the results of your test, I'm just saying that as far as I am personally concerned (and I don't pretend my position to be good for everyone), I don't rely on this kind of tests to judge a lens anymore. Since I buy lenses to take photographs, I prefer to judge a lens from the photographs that it takes, and not from a test. It is possible that when used "on the field", a lens reveals other qualities more important than a defect that emerges from a test. Or is it possible that it confirms to be a bad lens. In any case, I always want to give any lens a chance to do its job before I dismiss it. |
That's a very reasonable and understandable attitude. The problem only is that you need to have the lens first before you can try it. Tests are supposed to help with your decision.
It would be great if we could try-before-buy our gear!
_________________
"Schnäppchenjäger" | "KAPCTEH" | "Karusutenu" | "Carsten" | T-shirt?
Cams in use: EOS 40D, EOS 350D, EOS500, Spotmatic SPII, Yashica-24, EXA I & 1c, Zenit EM; Oly 35RC,Minolta Hi-Matic E & F, Ricoh 500RF, Yashica Electro 35 GS, FED-3b and some others...
Lenses in use: Asahi Pentax: 2.8/28;3.5/35;1.4/50;1.7/50;2.8/105;28-80 | Canon (AF):1.8/50;17-85;75-300 | Former GDR: Pentacon 3.5/30; Pentaflex 1.8/50; CZJ 2.8/50; CZJ 4/135; Pentacon 4/200 | Fujinon: 43-75 | Hanimex: 3.5/23; 4/100;80-200 | Hoya: 25-42;80-205 | Kiron: 2/28;70-210 | Leica: Elmarit-R 2.8/35 | Minolta: 1.7/50 | Nikkor: 2.8/24;2/35;2/50;1.2/55;1.8/85;3.5/135 | West German: Ludwig 2.9/50; Meyer 2.8/100; Will 4.5/105; Enna 3.5/135; Zeiss 4/135;Isco 4/135; Enna 4.5/240 | Olympus: 3.5/28;1.4/50;3.5/135 | Rikenon: 1.7/50;35-70 | Rollei/Voigtländer: 1.4/55;1.8/50 | Russian: Peleng3.5/8; Zenitar2.8/16; MIR2.8/37; Volna2.8/50; Industar3.5/50; Industar3.5/5cm; Helios2/50; Helios2/58; Volna2.8/80; Jupiter2/85; Kaleinar2.8/100;Tair2.8/135; Jupiter3.5/135; Jupiter4/135; Telear3.5/200; Jupiter4/200; Tair4.5/300;RF: Jupiter2.8/35;Industar2.8/53 | Sigma: 28-85;28-105(AF);17-70(AF) | Soligor: 28-105;35-200;70-220 | Tamron: 2.5/24;2.5/135;2.8/135;60-300;70-210 | Tokina: 28-105;80-200;12-24(AF);70-210(AF) | Vivitar: 3.5/17;2/24;2/28;2.5/28;2.8/28 | Yashica: 1.7/50;2/5cm | Other Japanese: Cosina3.8/20; Petri2.8/28; Albinar2.8/28; Porst1.8/35; 2.8/135; Weltblick3.5/135; Beroflex 8/500; Spiratone28-200; Maginon70-210
Green are the lenses I shoot the most.
More? http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard_D
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2313
Location: Faversham Kent UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really enjoy these tests even if they only show how then lens performs in one particular situation.
_________________
Richard
The interesting bit:
Nikkors: 20mm f2.8 AIS, 24mm f2.8 AIS, 28mm f2.8 AIS, 35mm f2.8 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AI, 50mm f1.48AI, 50m f2 AI,
55mm f3.5 AI'd, 105mm f4 AI, 135mm f2.8 AI'd, 135mm f3.5 AI'd, 200mm f4 AI'd, 300mm f4.5 AIS .
Nikon E Series: 100mm f2.8 .
Soviet Nikon Mount: Jupiter 9 (85mm f2), Mir-24N (35mm f2),
Tair-11a (135mm f2.8 ) .
Other: Meyer-Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (M42), Asahi Super Takumar 55 mm f2 (M42) ,Tokina 17mm f3.5 (AIS), Tamron 300mm f5.6 SP, Tamron 500mm f8 SP, Tamron 70-210 3.5(constant) .
DSLR: Nikon D200. 35mm SLRsNikon FE, Nikon EL2, Pentax S1a.
Sub-Minature: Pentax Auto 110, 18mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8.
More to come... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Rss feed
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
