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

Contax Planar 1.4/85 and Canon EF 2/100 Blind test
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:
Orio,
I am inclined to agree with you on why pic A is superior to pic B.


Thanks Katzer. I had in mind of doing this test since last February, after the last time I used the Canon EF100 "on field".
The test confirmed that my feeling about the lens was not my imagination, it was real, and also real is the reason why I prefer the look of my manual teles.
I have to admit, most probably these differences are nothing that one could not achieve with some Photoshop editing on the autofocus lens' image.
Yet, it feels much better to get the result from the start. Also because I am still a film photographer, and when you shoot slides, you can't use photoshop to enhance the microcontrast: either the lens provides it, or you just don't have it.

katzer wrote:
Question: what aperture value did you use to take those pictures with?


Both pictures were taken at f/5.6. Of course the DOF of the Canon lens is shallower because of the longer focal lenght.
Which makes me wanting to point out another fact: a relatively small difference in the focal lenght (from 85mm to 100mm) makes a BIG difference in the Depth of Field. Note how much blurred is the background in the Canon photo. I have focused both lenses on the same point on the can (with the Zeiss, the manual focusing may have produced a slightly different point, but not enough to be significant with regards to the blurring of the background).


PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting results. Would you mind if I also did some blind tests later?

@Peter: I hope you get well soon. Looking forward to seeing your Paris shots and to reading about your medium format experience (MF? = manual focus medium format Wink ).

Actually it is (MF)?, but let's not be too meticulous. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:
To complete the picture I think we are missing the price difference between those lenses.


Katzer, this is precisely the point of this forum and Attila's website and the whole renewed interest in MF lenses. The MF lenses are sold today at a price that is much lower than the original price, and therefore are a best buy compared to the AF lenses.

Quote:
The Canon 100mm f2 is a 400$ lens.


I don't know upon which catalogue you make this statement, here the lens is sold in the shops around 600 Euros, which is the price I paid last year when I bought it.

Quote:
That planar is an optical classic. That Canon... ehh.... not the most recent designs, no special UD elements or super-fancy coating. It really is a consumer lens, not a pro one.


Well, consumer lens or not, it is the only normal (i.e. non-macro) 100mm lens in Canon's current catalogue. There is no 100mm L lens.

Quote:
I have been monitoring auctions of that planar. I saw one where it went for 440$ (with a little scratch on the from element), clean condition ones went for 600-700$.


I bought my second copy for 370 Euros and it was a mint West Germany made copy. I got the first copy (Japan made) for 400 Euros, also mint condition, and with the expensive contax metal ring and hood included in the auction.
In other words, a Planar 85 costed to me 60-65% the price I paid for the EF 100 lens. So the price difference speaks in favor of the Contax Planar, not against it.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:
600EU for the canon 100 f2?!!?! wow- that's rough.
That lens goes for less than 400$ on Amazon & bhphotovideo, + shipping.
It is about 600$ in Israel


I have made a search in the online stores of Italy and only one now still has the lens for sale - ceartainly because everyone wants to buy the 100mm EF macro which is said to be sharper (but also slower).
The price of the one store I found is 550 Eur VAT included:
http://www.pmistore.it/frontend/schedaarticolo/scheda.asp?ca=2518A004&m=0004&HDRE=KLK_OTHER&from=kelkoo
Which is in line with the 600 Eur I paid in 2006 for my copy.

Quote:
You got an incredible good deal on your planars, I think the price on those has gone up since you bought them. They are becoming rare (at least on ebay) and one has to be patient and lucky to get a deal as good as you got.


Not really. I have seen three or four different ones recently on Ebay, and the ongoing prices when I saw them were much lower that what you would say. The quotation of 600 Eur is true here for the real shops that deal in used stuff (there is one in Modena where I sometimes go, and they have one with that price), but on Ebay the final prices are much inferior, usually around 400 Euros if not even less.
Amongst the recently ended auctions I found one that had the lens unsold in spite of the low price of 375 Eur.
A couple of months ago there was a bunch of Contax lenses (I gave Attila the link for them, because they were a good occasion for a buy-and-resell operation) that were for sale at good prices and the 1.4/85 went for less than 300 Euros (I think it was 285 or something like that).

Anyway, although I love my 85mm Planars very much, the winner lens in that focal lenght is the Helios-40-2
(as far as my preference is concerned, of course).


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As with almost all electronic stuff, the prices of AF gear in the States are much lower than in Europe.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
As with almost all electronic stuff, the prices of AF gear in the States are much lower than in Europe.


Yes, it's always been and I still have to understand why (less import duties probably).
Anyway, if you take into account the raise of the Euro towards the USD in the last year and half, you can see that the 50 Euros difference in the lens price since I bought it, comes all from the different international value of the Euro, which makes imports more affordable (and exports more difficult of course).


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Yes, it's always been and I still have to understand why (less import duties probably)...


Sometimes it is a mixture of politics and ripp-off.
Do you know the price difference between the German and the US-version of Adobe Photoshop? A ridiculous rippp-off!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Farside wrote:
A. is definitely sharper and contrastier and has more of an pleasing quality.


I do not agree. The A picture is under exposed compared to B, so you can't compare contrast here.

Both pictures have to be equaled as to provide the same overall exposure before any contrast comparaison.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flor27 wrote:

I do not agree. The A picture is under exposed compared to B, so you can't compare contrast here.
Both pictures have to be equaled as to provide the same overall exposure before any contrast comparaison.


No Flor. I took both pictures in manual mode with the same exposure. If there is a slight difference, it is only due to a minimal change of lighting in the sky. Look at the whites in both pictures: they are the same. If the first picture was underexposed, the whites would look grey.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would you please upload somewhere the original RAW file for each picture ?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flor27 wrote:
Would you please upload somewhere the original RAW file for each picture ?


I'm sorry, I don't keep any test files, my hard disks are already full and I'm desperate about space.
But I can remake the test, no problem. This time I will also meter the colour temperature with my Gossen meter so all variables will be zeroed.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A very nice copy of Planar 1.4/85 was just sold for 281 EUros:

Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:

I am patiently waiting for the Helios 40 to arrive... it better be good....


You will be happy, guaranteed.

By the way, what lens did you use for your latest photos?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:

I am patiently waiting for the Helios 40 to arrive... it better be good....
I am patiently waiting for the Helios 40 to arrive... it better be good....
I am patiently waiting for the Helios 40 to arrive... it better be good....


I agree with Orio. And if your wife someday will ask "one has to leave this house, your lens or me" this will be the first lens that will let you have doubts about the correct answer... Twisted Evil

Michael


PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:

I used the Helios 44-2 on the recent photos.


I was sort of sure about it. That kind of contrast, on the third photo, could only come from a lens like the Helios-44


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:
Orio,
Does the 85 planar work well with 5d (no mirror/infinity issues)?
Thanks,
Erez


The lens is mirror-safe. About infinity, I have no problem with the adaptors that I use, but there are some different ones available, and so this can become a case-by-case matter.

Anyway, one can always sand the adapter. I had to do it, to reach infinity with some "difficult" Contax lenses (like the 2.8/28 Distagon for instance).


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katzer wrote:
Orio,
One of the most critical aspects for me with a lens is performance wide open (sharpness, CA, contrast).
For instance, my Yashica 50 1.4 ML, while a very good lens indeed, has a bit of CA wide open. The Jupiter-9, a lovely lens but CA wide open is very pronounced. I am comparing those lenses to my Sigma EX 30mm 1.4 which is very sharp in the center and has very little CA at 1.4


Well, you can find CA in almost all normal lenses unfortunately. To be really on the safe side, you should buy an Apochromatic lens. There are some Voigtlaender tele lenses (Veijo and Patrick have one) that are APO and do not cost a fortune. These could be the lenses for you. The performance is brilliant, from what we can see.

Quote:
The ef-100mm performance is comparable with the Ef 85 1.8. Which is considered as a pretty good portrait lens on all accounts. We saw how the planar was better stopped down to 5.6, I am very curious how they fair the the wider apertures.


WIde open, the Planar is much better, because it's a lot sharper in the centre. The Canon EF 100 is weak wide open. Which reportedly was a choice, since they (Canon) state that the lens was designed to offer the best possible bokeh wide open, for portrait use. The bokeh of Planar 85, even wide open, is a bit harsher especially in the highlights.
The positive side of Planar 85 is that the focus area is perfectly sharp even wide open, so you can have portraits with the eyes tack sharp, and the rest of the face blurred. This is not possible on the EF 100 unless you post work the sharpness on the eyes (with the related risks).
As far as CA goes, both lenses have it wide open, but it's decidedly worse in the EF 100

Quote:
How would you rate EF100, Helios 40, Helios 40-2 and planar 85 when it comes to performance wide open?


The Helios-40(-2) is one of a kind, because wide open it's very similar to a soft focus lens - only, one hundred times better. It "spreads" the bokeh over the background like no other lens can. I have made pictures with my Helioses, that I can only describe as "magic", just impossible to create with any other lens.
The centre of the Helios-40(-2), wide open, can be very sharp, or can not - this largely depends on the copy variation factor, and I have handled 5 examples of this lens, and each one was different from the other. Some flared, some didn't, some were sharp in the focus area, some weren't exactly such. What is sure, is that by the time you reach f/5.6, the Helios-40(-2) becomes the sharpest lens I have ever tried - and I have tried many.
The EF-100 and Planar-85 are, with regards to wide open performance, more normal lenses, in that they don't change their character with the different aperture. Like i said, the EF 100 is soft wide open. I have compared it with the Planar 85 head to head, and there is no competition. The Planar is much sharper (note: we are always talking of the in focus area). With the Planar, you can make it very clear what is the main subject, and what is not, because wide open your main subject will be very sharp and the background very blurred. With the Canon EF 100 is not so easy, because the subject is not very sharp. The Canon, however, has a smoother bokeh. The two things (sharpness wide open and bokeh wide open), are closely related in all lenses, and lenses that are much corrected (and thus sharper), unavoidably have a less pleasing bokeh.

Quote:
Thanks,
Erez


You're very welcome, Erez, I hope this helps, if you have questions, please ask, and if you would like me to shoot some photos for you, like, subjects that you would like to compare the lenses with, just ask, I'll be glad to help, it's important that we can help each other with our buying decisions.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, glad to help, I'll do what I can.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've no planar in reach, so I can't help with a comparison. I can only confirm Orios statements about the Helios 40-2. My copy is sharp as a knife in the center even at f1.4 - if the light conditions are perfect. Here is an older sample, a 100% crop of an image taken with f1.4, light comes from two small 40W bulbs:



A fact that makes this lens very special is the strange characteristic of the curve of resolving power from center to border, going down with rising distance from center and then increasing again at the border:
center: 32--48
10mm: around 20
20mm: 16-34
(taken from http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/history/baklanov-about-helios.html)

There is also a chart on http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/helios-40.html

Michael


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Helios-40 lenses are exceptional they are good as than any $$$$ rated lenses.Look at this capture what Michael showed up if don't believe.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since pictures are worth a thousand words, here's two pictures to show the extremes that this lens (the Helios-40 or 40-2) can obtain.

Wide open, king of bokeh:


Stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, emperor of sharpness:


_


PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have made some comparison shots, Helios-40 vs. Planar 85
Please note that today is a horrible day for test shooting, because there is strong wind and fast clouds and the light changes continuously, like, you meter the light, bring the camera to the eye, and light value has already changed.
So do not expect 100% consistency.

Now I go to lunch, later I will upload a zip with full size tif conversions to my server.
Since I have a cheap server, please download only if interested.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK here's the file:

www.orio.ws/temp/hpcomp.zip

A few words while you download:

The total filesize of the TIFs after RAW processing was near to 900 Mb. As this was insane, I had to make some reduction choices. So I converted the files to 8bit depth and I converted them into 98% JPGs, which means unfortunately some compression but the quality rate is still near 100% and the gain in filesize is huge (from 509Mb to the current 49Mb)

Here's how I made the tests:
I used my 5D as it shows the full frame, I metered colour temperature with my Gossen Sixticolor and I input the Kelvin value directly in the 5D, bypassing the automatic white balance. This will allow to appreciate the different colour renderings of the two lenses.
As for light metering, I used my Gossen Multipro hand meter, and photographed in manual mode using the time value given by the hand meter, to bypass the camera metering and have constant metering for both exposures.
All shots were taken hand-held and both lenses had a hood on.
Unfortunately, like I explained, today wasn't a good day for lens testing. The wind and moving clouds made it impossible to make constant metering. I tried my best to make the couple of takes as consistent as possible, but it wasn't always possible (also because the slight difference in full aperture from 1.5 of the Helios to the 1.4 of the Planar added some visible difference that was too small for the camera's preset time increments to compensate).

Here I describe the 7 tests:

Test 1
wide open (Helios f/1.5, Planar f/1.4)
I photographed a linden tree in backlight, the aim was to help noticing chromatic aberrations, but the wind, and the abrupt change of lighting condition (in one shot you have clouds behind, in the other you have blue sky) made the test not 100% reliable, especially because there was a strong wind during the Planar shot while with the Helios shot the wind was much quieter. Also, by computer examination it turned out that I focused the tree in two different points from the Helios shot to the Planar shot. So please keep all these things into consideration.
Anyway even with all these factors, I think one can say that the Planar shows some purple CA, while the Helios shows none.

Test 2
wide open (Helios f/1.5, Planar f/1.4)
Another take for evaluating CA, this time a building with some flowers. Again the Planar shows some CA while the Helios shows none. On the other hand, the Helios shows a much poorer edge performance for both softness and corner vignetting. The central sharpness of the two lenses appears to be comparable.

Test 3
aperture f/5.6
This was a test to evaluate sharpness stopped down to f/5.6
The Planar appears to be clear winner for both centre resolution and edge resolution. The difference in edge resolution especially, is remarkable.

Test 4
wide open (Helios f/1.5, Planar f/1.4)
This is a paper flowers vase, as a test to near field focusing, wide open.
We can see the same things already noticed in the long range focusing tests. The purple CA is more evident in the Planar shot, and nearly absent from the Helios shot. The centre performances are comparable, perhaps the Planar seems a tiny bit sharper but this may be due do a difference in the focusing. The edge performance is much better in the Planar, and the bokeh of the Planar is also better, more creamy in the flat planes and also less annoying in the highlights

Test 5
wide open (Helios f/1.5, Planar f/1.4)
Same subject, but framing the flowers only, to evaluate the transition from focused to blurred.
This is the first and probably only test that has really surprised me. I was expecting the Helios-40 as a clear winner in the transition test, but the winner is the Planar without any doubt, much more creamier, smoother, and also displaying better colour saturation (although the saturation may in part depend from the slight difference in the exposure due to the f/1.4 - f/1.5 shift and the changing weather)

Test 6
wide open (Helios f/1.5, Planar f/1.4)
Same subject, but with real close up this time, to test close up performance.
This test is sort of a draw, the Helios prevails in the CA aberration department, showing absolutely none, while the Planar shows purple CA around the bright whites. The Planar prevails in the sharpness department, proving to be a sharper performer in the closeup range.

Test 7
aperture f/5.6
Same framing as test 5, but this time stopped down to f/5.6, to test sharpness stopped down in the near field focusing.
It's difficult to evaluate this test because unfortunately I focused the Helios farther than the Planar. As a consequence, more of the Helios shot is in the focused area, while most of the Planar shot is outside the focus area. I should repeat the test, but really don't have time. I think we can say however that the two performances, compared each in the sharpest point of the image, are comparable.

As a conclusion, I would say that the Helios-40 wins for the CA (or better said, lack thereof), while the Planar wins for the edge performance, the sharpness in the long field range, and surprisingly, also for the bokeh.
The substantially on par sharpness performance in the 1-2 meter focusing range, compared with the clear victory of the Planar in the long field range, shows I think that the Helios-40 is clearly a lens optimized for portraiture.

I conclude by remarking that in my opinion, if I used the Helios-40-2 in the test, instead of the Helios-40, the Helios-40-2 would have made a better performance in the sharpness department.

I will keep the file on the server for the weekend, on Monday I'll take it down.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katzer, was that helpful? I heard nothing...


PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought this is an important review so I made permanent home for pictures at mflenses.com