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

50s - wide open... (now with Part II)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:32 pm    Post subject: 50s - wide open... (now with Part II) Reply with quote
Some shots to compare the ooF rendering of some 50ish mm lenses. Each one as wide open as possible. Wink

Mamiya Sekor 1.8/55


Asahi Takumar 1.4/50


Revuenon Tomioka 1.4/55


Voigtländer Color-Ultron 1.4/55


Olympus Zuiko 1.4/50


ADDED: Rollei Planar 1.8/50


Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55 @f1.2


Canon EF 1.8/50 II



What do you think?

Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:41 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1) Ultron, Canon, Zuiko
2) others


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First impression:
Canon has much deeper DOF than all of the lenses shown.
Nikkor has the shallowest DOF.

IMO Nikkor has a more pleasing bokeh where the Olympus and Canon have distracting aspects (harsh circular shapes) in the bokeh.

I am continually drawn back to the Voigtländer as my overall favorite.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the canon is the best one followed by the ultron, sekkor,zuiko,tak,tapioca,nikkor
of course others are more open than 1.8 but canon have AF
the nikkor flare, but 1.2 is 1.2


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikkor 1.2/55 has the best bokeh for me, but the focused area is way too soft for my taste.

Now forget the bokeh and look at the other parts, the Ultron displays an incredible micro-contrast, look at the grey metal of the lens, in all the other photos, it looks dull, only in the Ultron photo it looks shining bright like just polished, and also you can read easily the writings in the shadowed part, which you can not do in any of the other photos, this means superior micro-contrast and it's the kind of subtle thing that makes the difference in a lens in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
... look at the grey metal of the lens, in all the other photos, it looks dull, only in the Ultron photo it looks shining bright like just polished, and also you can read easily the writings in the shadowed part, which you can not do in any of the other photos...

I don't understand, Orio. As far as I am concerned the metal looks shiny in each photo and I can read the text in the dark areas of each photo.
Could you please show what you mean?

My opinion:

- The sharpest lens is the Canon EF followed by the Ultron and the Zuiko. It is no surprise that the EF lens is the "sharpest" one. Modern lenses are optimized for sharp results.

- The limited sharpness of the Nikkor is caused by the f1.2. If you stop this lens down to f2, the sharpness increases considerably.

- The best bokeh has without doubt the Nikkor, but then the f1.2 helps a lot again. I also like the bokeh of the Zuiko, the Voigtländer, the Takumar and the Canon. Have a look at the area in the top right corner.

- The loser of this comparison IMHO is the Tomioka Revuenon which is a kind of surprise. I always thought it was a great lens. But then it was my first f1.4 lens, perhaps that's why I have been so amazed by it. I think the other f1.4 lenses shown here are better.

- The Mamiya is quite good in any field but it never performs extremely well. It's a lens that can do everything well, but nothing perfectly. (And thus resembles me a lot. Wink)


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maddog10 wrote:
Canon has much deeper DOF than all of the lenses shown.


This also has surprised me. 50mm and definitely f1.8, similar focus point, EF lens focussed manually just like the others. Does anybody have an idea why the "Adox" is more legible in the Canon shot than in the other ones?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

I don't understand, Orio. As far as I am concerned the metal looks shiny in each photo and I can read the text in the dark areas of each photo.
Could you please show what you mean?


here it is:


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
......tapioca,.....


Was that intentional or you just had tapioca in your food recently! Very Happy

I learn one thing, while there are components or IQ elements that we can use to evaluate and discuss objectively like the sharpness, etc., at the end of the day, it's how the IQ appeals to us that decides. The Canon seems to get the agreement by many of us as to it's sharpness but we cannot come strong consensus which produces the best and most appealing bokeh.

Personally, I think the Nikkor has the best all-round image, but I like the Canon and Zuiko too.

Carsten, can you add Russian Helios 44 and CZJ to the list too.

Thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultron and the nikkor for my taste. Canon OOF is slightly less pleasing than those two. Nice series of comparisons


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bawang wrote:
Was that intentional

yes! more funny name

Carsten wrote:
The sharpest lens is the Canon EF

quite good result for a plastic AF thing Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
The sharpest lens is the Canon EF

quite good result for a plastic AF thing Wink

Yes, but rather typical for the "plastic fantastic": crappy built but really good performance. Wink

@Orio: Thanks, I think now I know what you mean.

@bawang: You're right. I should have added some more lenses, but originally I wanted to compare only f1.4 lenses, somehow the Mamiya crept into the group. Wink

If I find the time, I will add the Helios-44, the Nikkor 2.0/50, a Yashica ML 1.7/50 and my Pentax-M 1.7/50 to the list.

BTW: It seems that I have misfocussed the Nikkor shot a little, Have a look at the table...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kind of embarrassing but I forgot to upload the Planar shot. Embarassed

ADDED: Rollei Planar 1.8/50


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Nikkor 1.2/55 has the best bokeh for me, but the focused area is way too soft for my taste.


I agree, for some subject where a soft main subject is acceptable or desired this could be ok, but for this subject this lens gives an unusable result IMHO at this aperture. Then again it was the only 1.2 on test.

Orio wrote:
Now forget the bokeh and look at the other parts, the Ultron displays an incredible micro-contrast, look at the grey metal of the lens, in all the other photos, it looks dull, only in the Ultron photo it looks shining bright like just polished, and also you can read easily the writings in the shadowed part, which you can not do in any of the other photos, this means superior micro-contrast and it's the kind of subtle thing that makes the difference in a lens in my opinion.


The Rollei and Canon also did fairly well in this area.

I agree that the in-focus area is nicely rendered by the Ultron; the oof highlights are rather unpleasant however.

If you still have it, Carsten, the results from the Yashica ML 1.7/50 would be interesting to compare; from your comments it might give a similarly soft (but also similarly unobtrusive hilight bokeh) result to the Nikkor 1.2 despite the differences in aperture.

The Zuiko does rather nicely on oof highlight bokeh, I feel, and still gives a useful in-focus rendering too..

(Checks) you don't have any Nikkor 50(ish)mm f/1.4s?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For what it's worth, here's my take:
Each lens has it's own unique characteristic and I honestly like the results that each gives. But, each one may not be rendering the greatest results for the subject but you have proven they all have a place (even the af Laughing )
My pick for sharpness: Canon
Bokeh: Ultron & Tak
However, when I go wide open with a lens I expect a shallow depth of field and the Canon always dissapointed me (went through 4 copies and quit)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Frankly the cheap plastic nikkor 50/1.8 can match any of them for sharpness, but like most of the nikkors at this length - sharp sharp and fuzzy OOF. Frankly the nikkor 50/1.4 at f2.0 is a match for anything.


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The differences in any case are very small, in most cases, mostly defineable as imperceptible for most people except hyper analytical ones. We are talking of 50mm lenses (the easiest and most common to build) and of a crop camera, which means, only the centre of optical frame is visible. In these conditions, it's actually even more differences that I would have expected.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Nikkor for oof the Ultron for infocus with the Rollei getting an honourable mention.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
If you still have it, Carsten, the results from the Yashica ML 1.7/50 would be interesting to compare; from your comments it might give a similarly soft (but also similarly unobtrusive hilight bokeh) result to the Nikkor 1.2 despite the differences in aperture.

Yes, I should try to shoot with this lens today...

ChrisLilley wrote:
(Checks) you don't have any Nikkor 50(ish)mm f/1.4s?

Hell, no! I need that one! Wink

Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
The Nikkor for oof the Ultron for infocus with the Rollei getting an honourable mention.

Nicely put.
I guess a "Nikkor-Zuiko-S.C Ultra-Planar 1.2/50" would be the perfect lens. Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
The Nikkor for oof the Ultron for infocus with the Rollei getting an honourable mention.

Nicely put.
I guess a "Nikkor-Zuiko-S.C Ultra-Planar 1.2/50" would be the perfect lens. Laughing


haha, can you order one for me too? Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:40 pm    Post subject: Part II Reply with quote
OK, here is part II... (Slightly different light situation, it was darker in the room and focussing more difficult.)

CZJ Tessar 2.8/50


Helios-44-2 2.0/58


Helios-44-M6 2.0/58


Yashica ML 1.7/50


Yashinon 2.0/5cm


Nikkor-H 2.0/50


Nikkor 2.0/50 AI


SMC Pentax-M 1.7/50


MC Volna-9 2.8/50


Minolta Rokkor PF 1.7/50


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Much harder to pick a clear winner in this set Confused

My 3 favorites (can be in any order)

CZJ Tessar 2.8/50
Helios-44-2 2.0/58
Nikkor-H 2.0/50 (sharp , not as nice a bokeh as I would expect)

I also liked the Volna-9, it had a soft bokeh that I like, but it has a strange flare from the white papers(?) that transfered over onto the camera body.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maddog10 wrote:
Much harder to pick a clear winner in this set Confused


I agree.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maddog10 wrote:
Much harder to pick a clear winner in this set Confused

My 3 favorites (can be in any order)

CZJ Tessar 2.8/50
Helios-44-2 2.0/58
Nikkor-H 2.0/50 (sharp , not as nice a bokeh as I would expect)

I also liked the Volna-9, it had a soft bokeh that I like, but it has a strange flare from the white papers(?) that transfered over onto the camera body.



I pretty much agree although I'd add the Nikkor AI but I'm probably biased with owning that one since I got my FE many many years back...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2