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

Comparison of 12 wideangles 35mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:59 am    Post subject: Comparison of 12 wideangles 35mm Reply with quote
Guess I have been infected not only with the GAS virus ("Gear Akquisition Syndrome"), but now also the GTS kicks in ("Gear Test Syndrome"). Anyway, here the results of some close up tests, as long as the birthday flowers are still good... Wink

#1 Noflexar 3.5/35mm
@f4


#2 Meyer Primagon 4.5/35mm
@f4.5


#3 CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35mm
@f4


#4 Schacht Travegon 3.5/35mm
@f4


#5 Pentax Takumar 4/35mm (old first type, not Super nor SMC version)
@f4


#6 Olympus FTL G.Zuiko 2.8/35mm
@f4


#7 Steinheil Culmigon 4.5/35mm
@f4.5


#8 Angenieux Retrofocus R1 2.8/35mm
@f4


#9 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old full aluminum version)
@f4


#10 Enna Lithagon 4.5/35mm (old full aluminum version)
@f4.5


#11 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old "zebra" version)
@f4


#12 Enna Lithagon 3.5/35mm (old "zebra" version)
@f4


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What strikes me first, Klaus, are the "dull" colours of the Flek and the different angle that the Angenieux lens shows.
Did you change the distance to the subject? And did the Flek have problems with exposure?
And there are intense JPEG artefacts in the dark background, so it's really hard for me to judge on that.

As far as colours are concerned, I think the Travegon "kicks" the most, but this also can be a result of different exposure.

Actually, IMHO, the results are so close that I couldn't call a winner.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow!
By this bulk of lenses, you had worked fine.
Concratulation, this test is wonderfull.
The Flek is a little grey (old version?), the #9Enna Lithagon is my favorite, the others are equal.
This quality of old lenses is famos.

The Flek is pale, the meyer is better, so i will search for this lens on ebay, becouse I am searching for a good 35 lens.

Thank´s for this thest.

respectfully Peter


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Dr Klaus
Happy birthday to your family member
I am very happy for the GTS kicks
I don't have any of the lens so the test is very interesting for me
They are a lot of color difference but they are not so important for me in the digital age
From first sight and according to my sharpness preferences I prefer better first
Steinheil, Enna, Meyer, Noflexar
I could not evaluate the flek as my zone of interest was oof
I am more interested by your personal evaluation based on your great experience


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
What strikes me first, Klaus, are the "dull" colours of the Flek and the different angle that the Angenieux lens shows.
Did you change the distance to the subject? And did the Flek have problems with exposure?


Yep, also to my surprise. I guess the lens has some yellowing issue. Exposure was identically set for all lenses (i.e. identically measured and set), another miracle for that lens. I was astonished since I expected that in the top group. The angle shift of the Angenieux I cannot explain, since the setup was identical for all lenses (sturdy tripod, same distance, focusing using the lens helicoid) and it was in between the test nof others. Maybe misalignment internally? And yes, I used a sunshade to prevent questions (not yours, of course).... Wink

LucisPictor wrote:

And there are intense JPEG artefacts in the dark background, so it's really hard for me to judge on that.

This is a rippled black chair!

LucisPictor wrote:

As far as colours are concerned, I think the Travegon "kicks" the most, but this also can be a result of different exposure.

Actually, IMHO, the results are so close that I couldn't call a winner.


It does, as does the Olympus FTL, the Takumar, the Enna(s) and the Noflexar, the latter esp. for sharpness.

I will post 100% crops later when I find the time to.

Last edited by kds315* on Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padiej wrote:
Wow!
By this bulk of lenses, you had worked fine.
Concratulation, this test is wonderfull.
The Flek is a little grey (old version?), the #9Enna Lithagon is my favorite, the others are equal.
This quality of old lenses is famos.

The Flek is pale, the meyer is better, so i will search for this lens on ebay, becouse I am searching for a good 35 lens.

Thank´s for this thest.

respectfully Peter


Thanks Peter!

I have a couple of surplus lenses sitting around, also Meyers, listed in "for sale section here btw."


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Hi Dr Klaus
Happy birthday to your family member
I am very happy for the GTS kicks
I don't have any of the lens so the test is very interesting for me
They are a lot of color difference but they are not so important for me in the digital age
From first sight and according to my sharpness preferences I prefer better first
Steinheil, Enna, Meyer, Noflexar
I could not evaluate the flek as my zone of interest was oof
I am more interested by your personal evaluation based on your great experience


Thanks, ehemm, that was me. GTS has severe symptoms as it tracks you away from your loved ones and makes you stare at your computer very long and late hours....sighhhh

As said before, the Flek really is a bummer, an nearly unused lens, still in box and then this!

I fully agree about your rating, my top group also consists of teh Noflexar, Meyer, Enna, Steinheil, Takumar + Oly. Will post crops later for detailled inspection.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Flex seems despite the darkness to be the sharpest. The Angenieux Retrofocus has a real 'glow'.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
What strikes me first, Klaus, are the "dull" colours of the Flek and the different angle that the Angenieux lens shows.
Did you change the distance to the subject? And did the Flek have problems with exposure?


Yep, also to my surprise.


Not to mine. I have recently took shots of same subject with the Contax Distagon 2.8/35 and the Flek 2.4/35, and the most visible difference (and constant characteristic) was the higher colour density of the Distagon.
After that, I used the Flek again to photograph the Brassica fields, and once again I was disappointed by the greyish tone of the rendering.
Of course with digital this is almost a non issue, but I still like to shoot film.

P.S. in your photo, there is not only a density issue but also a flare problem (probably due to the single coating of the 2.8 model).

P.P.S. I like what I see from the Primagon lens.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
The Flex seems despite the darkness to be the sharpest. The Angenieux Retrofocus has a real 'glow'.


I respectfully disagree, you'll see soon on the 100% crops.

The Angenieux has something to it, maybe that makes that
reputation they still have (and the prices resulting from that...),
that needs to be analysed in depth...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
The Flex seems despite the darkness to be the sharpest. The Angenieux Retrofocus has a real 'glow'.


I respectfully disagree, you'll see soon on the 100% crops.

...


I'll look forward to seeing them - the central carnation seems to hold a good amount of detail to my eyes at this size.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:13 pm    Post subject: 100% center crops Reply with quote
Here the 100% center crops


#1 Noflexar 3.5/35mm
@f4


#2 Meyer Primagon 4.5/35mm
@f4.5


#3 CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35mm
@f4


#4 Schacht Travegon 3.5/35mm
@f4


#5 Pentax Takumar 4/35mm (old first type, not Super nor SMC version)
@f4


#6 Olympus FTL G.Zuiko 2.8/35mm
@f4


#7 Steinheil Culmigon 4.5/35mm
@f4.5


#8 Angenieux Retrofocus R1 2.8/35mm
@f4


#9 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old full aluminum version)
@f4


#10 Enna Lithagon 4.5/35mm (old full aluminum version)
@f4.5


#11 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old "zebra" version)
@f4


#12 Enna Lithagon 3.5/35mm (old "zebra" version)
@f4


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:23 pm    Post subject: 100% center crops @f11 Reply with quote
100% center crops @f11


#1 Noflexar 3.5/35mm


#2 Meyer Primagon 4.5/35mm


#3 CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35mm


#4 Schacht Travegon 3.5/35mm


#5 Pentax Takumar 4/35mm (old first type, not Super nor SMC version)


#6 Olympus FTL G.Zuiko 2.8/35mm


#7 Steinheil Culmigon 4.5/35mm


#8 Angenieux Retrofocus R1 2.8/35mm


#9 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old full aluminum version)


#10 Enna Lithagon 4.5/35mm (old full aluminum version)


#11 Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old "zebra" version)


#12 Enna Lithagon 3.5/35mm (old "zebra" version)


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All shots done using an Olympus E-510 w. M42 adaptor,
lifeview focusing @10x magnification on the center spotted
flower petal, weighted spot measurement and 0EV exposure,
set @3000K whitebalance due to the tungsten light source used


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Klaus, maybe it's my eyes but looking at the green 'tounge' like petal in the front centre ofeach shot, on the wide open shot the Flek seems to show more detail than most of the others.

The Angeniuex certainly improves a lot by f11.

I think overall the Meyer wins my vote but it's a close contest.

Last edited by Richard_D on Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
Klaus, maybe it's my eyes but looking at the green 'tounge' like petal in the front centre ofeach shot, on the wide open shot the Flek seems to show more detail than most of the others..

Yes, but it shouldn't since that wasn't the focus spot; the petal behind was it. Another thing I don't understand aside from that yellow tint...but I don't mind if that is your personal favourate lens... Wink


Richard_D wrote:
The Angeniuex certainly improves a lot by f11.
It does, but the flare (or what it should be called...glow etc.) is still present. Maybe ideal for wide angle portraits (who would to that to someone???) The angle is different, more like a 28mm lens, strange.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
Klaus, maybe it's my eyes but looking at the green 'tounge' like petal in the front centre ofeach shot, on the wide open shot the Flek seems to show more detail than most of the others..

Yes, but it shouldn't since that wasn't the focus spot; the petal behind was it. Another thing I don't understand aside from that yellow tint...but I don't mind if that is your personal favourate lens... Wink
.


Yes it could just be differences in focus point. It's not my favourite out of the samples but I think it's performance is pretty good. To be honest none of them scream out as don't touch with a barge pole in this test.

kds315* wrote:

Richard_D wrote:
The Angeniuex certainly improves a lot by f11.
It does, but the flare (or what it should be called...glow etc.) is still present. Maybe ideal for wide angle portraits (who would to that to someone???) The angle is different, more like a 28mm lens, strange.


Yes the 'glow' is still there but the detail at f11 is very good - I know it's technically an aberation but I quite like the effect on flowers. It could be very effective for some uses.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: DUHHHH - I'm legally blind... Reply with quote
Just checked the Angenieux again, it is a 28mm, not 35mm - DUHHH!

So that miracle is solved at least...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The dull and darker colours from this Flek are quite surprising. I have the 2.4 multi-coated version and for contrast and bright colours it's one of the best primes in my collection. Could it be the lack of multi-coating doing this? It seems doubtful.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
What strikes me first, Klaus, are the "dull" colours of the Flek and the different angle that the Angenieux lens shows.
Did you change the distance to the subject? And did the Flek have problems with exposure?


Yep, also to my surprise. I guess the lens has some yellowing issue. Exposure was identically set for all lenses (i.e. identically measured and set), another miracle for that lens. I was astonished since I expected that in the top group.


Yes, it has a striking amount of low contrast, but in a veiling flare kind of way, and an unpleasant brownish cast on the whites of the flower petals and on the magenta ribboon in particular.

kds315* wrote:

The angle shift of the Angenieux I cannot explain, since the setup was identical for all lenses (sturdy tripod, same distance, focusing using the lens helicoid) and it was in between the test nof others. Maybe misalignment internally? And yes, I used a sunshade to prevent questions (not yours, of course).... Wink

It must be that, although sold as a 35mm, the lens is optically somewhat wider, maybe 30mm? Perhaps it was not quite wide enough to be sold as the next standard size, a 28, so was sold as a 35?

kds315* wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

And there are intense JPEG artefacts in the dark background, so it's really hard for me to judge on that.

This is a rippled black chair!


Furthermore, it was only when looking at the lower contrast Angenieux picture that I could see the shadow detail sufficiently to see that it was a black chair back. I had seen the metal hilight in the other pictures but not been able to associate it with any particular object. The Angenieux shows where it came from. However, I don't much like what the Angenieux does to the flowers. Its low contrast (but in a Leica way not a veiling flare way).

The Noflexar gave a good result here.

Thanks for taking the time to do these comparative tests! Several of the names are new to me.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, thanks for the info about the chair.

With the 100% crops, the Enna Lithagon 2.8/35mm (old "zebra" version) and the Steinheil Culmigon 4.5/35mm really rock for me.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm pleantly surpised by the Meyer - a nice balance IMO.


PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I liked the Enna Lithagon 2.8/35 old zebra version even before Lucis Pictor's post. Throughout the range, this lens really shows as a superb lens.

But REALLY...I am rather surprised that they ALL are very close (except for the errant Flektogon). It looks to me that you could be very pleased with ANY of these. The "percentage" of differences is actually very very small.

THANKS for these tests! This is a lot of fun!


PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The general opinion seems to be the same as mine - that I can't tell the difference between most of these, and I would be happy enough with any.

Which leads me to think that the cheap Japanese makes are probably just as adequate.


PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the centre of the image, and especially at f/8, most lenses deliver a very similar performance, and so the small difference must not surprise, it is the rule and not the exception. To perceive big differences in that, would probably mean that there's something wrong with some of the lenses.

Before forming a complete opinion on a lens, a complete comparison should be held, which means comparing also 100% crops of the corners of the image - and of course it would help to know which camera was used for a test, because a test made with a full frame camera will be different from a test made with an APS-C camera.

Then, there is not only sharpness or bokeh to test, there are other important things to verify, such as distortions, or aberrations, or the performance under backlight condition (flare, ghosting).

Finally, but most importantly, different samples at different focal distances should be taken, because lenses (except those that have floating elements for compensation) are optimized for one focal distance, which in most cases is the infinity distance, as it was confirmed to me by a Zeiss Oberkochen engineer I had an email exchange with (he wrote to me that all Zeiss lenses' official MTF tests are made at infinity focus, because that is what all Zeiss lenses are optimized for (except the macros of course, and the special lenses with floating elements such as the Hollywood Distagon).

So I would be very cautious to conclude that cheap Japanese lenses would be as adequate as expensive lenses, without a complete testing to verify.
-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2