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

500mm lens test Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm f4 Pentacon 500mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:58 pm    Post subject: 500mm lens test Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm f4 Pentacon 500mm Reply with quote
Test made by my dear friend Istvan Csabai , not by me.

Participants:

Beroflex 500mm f8
3M 6A 500mm f6.3 mirror
Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm f4.0! (Queen of Csaba Smile ) mirror
MTO 500A 550mm f8.5 mirror
Pentacon Prakticar 500mm f5.6




Subject distance taken with an 50mm lens.



Subject taken with any of them.



3M 500mm f6.3 center



3M 500mm f6.3 edge



Beroflex 500mm f8 center



Beroflex 500mm f8 edge



Beroflex 500mm f11 center



Beroflex 500mm f11 edge



Beroflex 500mm f16 center



Beroflex 500mm f16 edge



MTO 8,5/550 center



MTO 8,5/550 edge



Pentacon 500mm f5.6 center



Pentacon 500mm f5.6 edge



Pentacon 500mm f8 center



Pentacon 500mm f8 edge



Pentacon 500mm f11 center



Pentacon 500mm f11 edge



Pentacon 500mm f16 center



Pentacon 500mm f16 edge



Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm f4 center



Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm f4 edge



PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Jena looks the winner, seems sharpest to me as well as least CA.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not bad!!
I own MTO-500 550/8.5 and it looks realy nice compare to others!!!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
xjjohnno wrote:
The Jena looks the winner, seems sharpest to me as well as least CA.


Yes, I would agree.

However, I think there is some additional potential from the other lenses... For example, the 3M looks like it wasn't completely stable (vertical smearing), and there is significant noise in the white portions of the Beroflex and MTO shots in particular, making me think that they were taken in less favorable lighting. Depending on the camera, upping the ISO can have a dramatic negative impact on sharpness in the image...

Attila, do you happen to have the exposure details (ISO & shutter speed) for a few of these, such as say the 3M f6.3 edge, Beroflex f8 edge, MTO 8,5 edge, CZJ f4 edge?

Also, be sure to give your friend our thanks for performing these tests! It is not every day to see real-world tests for lenses like the CZJ f/4 mirror. Cool


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, insofar as I don't like any of the test results, I'd like to thank your dear friend for persuading me not to bother with any of these lenses. Didn't need much persuasion.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug, accordig to the EXIF data contained in those images, they were taken with a Nikon D300 :

3M 500mm f6.3 edge - iso 400 & 1/500

Beroflex 500mm f8 edge - iso 400 & 1/1000

MTO 550mm f8.5 edge - iso 400 & 1/500

Carl Zeiss 500mm f4 edge - iso 200 & 1/1500

And if you're using firefox there's a nifty extension that lets you right click on any image and view the EXIF data.

And for some reason not all the samples contain EXIF data

I wonder how much of a difference in noise levels between iso 200 & 400 on the d300....

Would be interesting to see the same test done under controlled lighting.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm very impressed with the CZ Jena mirror. Excellent resolution, no CA and contrast looks pretty good as well. At f4 I should think focusing would be very tricky.

Do people realise which bit of the test chart is shown in the crops? Look at the full picture. There is a black square at the top. Underneath the square is a -2. Below and to the right of the -2 is another black square. That square is the one at the top of the crops. Even the "1" marks at the bottom of the crops are not discernible in the full picture when displayed at this size. These marks constitute a minute fraction of the full picture area. To resolve the "6" marks as the CZJ mirror lens does is remarkable!

The refractor lenses do exactly what I find with telephoto lenses on my Oly E3, i.e. they give strong colour fringing and low contrast. The Beroflex is, I assume, one of the common preset 500mm f8 lenses. As such it can be forgiven its mediocre performance. The Pentacon looks weak at the edge when full open. However, I suspect when viewed at a more sensible size the defects will not be that noticeable.

Thanks to Istvan for a very interesting test. I will have to find the time to post the results of my comparison of my Zuiko and Tamron 500mm mirror lenses. I've also recently acquired a Rubinar but got rather mixed results from it in my first test.

Mark


PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Look forward your results Mark! 500mm fast lens not easy for any maker that for sure.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:

However, I think there is some additional potential from the other lenses... For example, the 3M looks like it wasn't completely stable (vertical smearing), and there is significant noise in the white portions of the Beroflex and MTO shots in particular, making me think that they were taken in less favorable lighting.


I agree with this. There's some pretty obvious motion induced blur in a few of the images. Live View and/or a remote release will help.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed seeing this series. And yes, to me the CZJ was the clear winner. Not much of a surprise, I suppose. I love this sort of stuff, really. There's no substitute for hard data like this. And having such a test with such exotic lenses is especially fascinating.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with most of the comments, but a little perplexed by tikkathree's

Quote:
Well, insofar as I don't like any of the test results, I'd like to thank your dear friend for persuading me not to bother with any of these lenses. Didn't need much persuasion.


Do you have someting better in mind that many of us might afford?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The CZJ mirror is fantastic in this test, miles ahead of some others. Is this a very rare and expensive lens? I didn't find many info in search.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
symphonic wrote:
The CZJ mirror is fantastic in this test, miles ahead of some others. Is this a very rare and expensive lens? I didn't find many info in search.


Yes, I saw 2 copies including this one under 4 yrs.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I stumbled upon this discussion when searching on tests made with a 500mm Pentacon lens. I have one and just took some pictures using my new Sony NEX 5R with adaptor. By the look of it, the CZJ mirror lens leaves the Pentacon in the dust.
My ‘tests’ are not as rigorous as Attila’s - only took some townscape photos -, but the colour fringing is quite evident.
You can take a look at my photos here, if interested:

http://sonynex5r.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/500mmPentaconLens.html


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
GP wrote:
I stumbled upon this discussion when searching on tests made with a 500mm Pentacon lens. I have one and just took some pictures using my new Sony NEX 5R with adaptor. By the look of it, the CZJ mirror lens leaves the Pentacon in the dust.
My ‘tests’ are not as rigorous as Attila’s - only took some townscape photos -, but the colour fringing is quite evident.
You can take a look at my photos here, if interested:

http://sonynex5r.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/500mmPentaconLens.html


Pictures are not visible in your first post, forum settings Smile

P.S.
Nice test, but I'd shoot raw. Jpeg is not the strongest feature sony cameras have.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:

http://sonynex5r.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/500mmPentaconLens.html

Pictures are not visible in your first post, forum settings Smile

P.S.
Nice test, but I'd shoot raw. Jpeg is not the strongest feature sony cameras have.


Thank you for the correction.

Yeah, when compared with the Nikon D300 - which is the other digital camera I have -, the Nikon comes out on top as far as the in-camera JPEG conversion is concerned. But for the record, when I took these pictures with the Sony, this was the workflow:
1. shoot RAW, 2. convert RAW -> Tiff with Sony's software, 3. Load Tiff into Photoshop (16-bit), 4. Do some basic correction (mostly or entirely in 16 bit) and crop and /or reduce size, 5. Save as JPEG for web display.
Apart from size reduction, this last step was when most of the quality went out of the window, I think.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
GP wrote:
2. convert RAW -> Tiff with Sony's software

It doesn't matter where you run the raw conversion process, either in the camera or on your computer with the Sony's software. In both cases it's the exact same Sony's conversion algorithm that does the job. To get around Sony's notoriously bad raw conversion you have to use... well, something other than Sony software. Most of the quality in your photos didn't go away at the last step, it was already gone at step 2. I looked at the photos and they all have the typical Sony smeared oil painting type look, good for 10x15cm prints but not for anything else. You can get A LOT better results if you use a more capable raw converter.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
GP wrote:
2. convert RAW -> Tiff with Sony's software

It doesn't matter where you run the raw conversion process, either in the camera or on your computer with the Sony's software. In both cases it's the exact same Sony's conversion algorithm that does the job. To get around Sony's notoriously bad raw conversion you have to use... well, something other than Sony software. Most of the quality in your photos didn't go away at the last step, it was already gone at step 2. I looked at the photos and they all have the typical Sony smeared oil painting type look, good for 10x15cm prints but not for anything else. You can get A LOT better results if you use a more capable raw converter.


Thanks for the suggestion miran. I must admit I'm not up to the minute with image manipulation software as I still mostly use film. I'll see if I can get myself more interested in new digital technologies and invest in some decent software.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I still want the Pentacon. It's next on my list, assuming I can find one for sane money.

Not a chance in hell I'll mount it on an NEX though, I dislike the Pentacon 300/4 on there, ergonomically, and I can only see the 500mnm being worse.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:46 am    Post subject: 500mm telephoto test Reply with quote
Most photo lenses are especially designed for the infinity distance, and loose optical qualities in the closer distance. This counts also for the 500mm telephoto lenses. So any tests in a closeer distance, cannot prove the effective optical quality of any 500mm telephoto lens!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1