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

Exciting news (for me)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The comparison looks interesting.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found a comparison of CZ 85/1.2 60 years, CZ 85/1.4 and Canon EF85/1.2 L

excuse the ridiculously long link.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://itbbs.pconline.com.cn/dc/7994082.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D60%2Byear%2Banniversary%2BContax%2Bf1.2%26start%3D100%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DrXQ%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divnsfd&rurl=translate.google.ca&usg=ALkJrhiiv_DX-clNRcCYPAeNAIkDo9zD0g

Kelly.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Kelly,

Thanks for that last link. I was surprised at the results. The Canon EF 85/1.2 is clearly better than the Zeiss 85/1.4 in all respects until about f/8, at which point it seems to me to be about a draw.

But it was the comparison of the two heavyweights that I was most surprised by. Honestly, I expected the Zeiss 85/1.2 to blow away the Canon. But it didn't, did it? It was marginally sharper at the corners at the wider open apertures, but other than that, I'd call it a draw.

Feeling much better about my Canon 85/1.2 now. Cool


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:

But it was the comparison of the two heavyweights that I was most surprised by. Honestly, I expected the Zeiss 85/1.2 to blow away the Canon. But it didn't, did it? It was marginally sharper at the corners at the wider open apertures, but other than that, I'd call it a draw.

Feeling much better about my Canon 85/1.2 now. Cool


Yes, but how reliable is this totally uheard-of site?

Take a look here, I am convinced they are doing very reliable tests:
Canon 85mm f/1.2L II vs Zeiss 2/100 Makro Planar, comparison at f/2

They are both at f/2, so the Canon is already stopped-down 2 stops. Tell me what you see...
Warning: To avoid disappointment, do not compare them both wide-open.

[Hint: roll your mouse over the arrow between the lens names]

Unfortunately they do not have crops from the Contax 1.2/85


Last edited by Nikos on Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, when comparing a macro lens (usually optimized for flat field, even more a Planar) to any other lens on a flat subject, I suppose it has to be this way.
The Canon looks better to me in the center, though. Way less fringing.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting. Just ignoring the Zeiss, seems to be noticeably different results with the Canon lens between the two sites.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Interesting. Just ignoring the Zeiss, seems to be noticeably different results with the Canon lens between the two sites.

BTW, Canon has produced some extraordinary lenses lately:
17mm f/4L Tilt-shift (mf lens, crazy sharp, no CA, no distortion, no flare PLUS tilts-shift...)
70-200 f/2.8L IS II (Zeiss 2/100 is certainly sharper, but not much sharper)

Unfortunately, both are huge and ultra-expensive Shocked

It is interesting to compare these lenses with their Zeiss equivalents in the ZE series.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. It seems that, in recent years, Canon has begun to give their lens designers more free rein, such that they are no longer building to a price point anymore, which has been a long practice with the Japanese, and are letting them just go for it. Then again, I'm reminded that Canon has a bit of history already of doing this in the past -- stretching the envelope, that is. The 50mm f/0.95 for the Canon 7 rangefinder comes to mind, as well as the EF 50mm f/1.0. Even in the early 60s, back in the day of the R-series Canon SLRs, Canon produced a range of long telephotos -- from 600mm to 1200mm -- and I don't think any of their competitors had anything equivalent to them at the time.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Even in the early 60s, back in the day of the R-series Canon SLRs, Canon produced a range of long telephotos -- from 600mm to 1200mm -- and I don't think any of their competitors had anything equivalent to them at the time.


Golden memories vs. reality:

Both Canon and Nikon launched 500-1000mm mirror lenses starting 1961, war later escalated to Nikon launching 2000mm mirror lens. Both Canon and Nikon had superteles (400-600-800-1200mm) from the early 1960s. By the early 1970s, both Japanese manufacturers had a wide range of superteles in production, though for both global sales figures were counted in hundreds more often than thousands.

I am sure someone who is better familiar with other SLR systems can verify that Canon and Nikon weren't the only ones to manufacture 600mm and longer superteles (mirror lenses not counted) in those years (1960s)


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Hey Kelly,

Thanks for that last link. I was surprised at the results. The Canon EF 85/1.2 is clearly better than the Zeiss 85/1.4 in all respects until about f/8, at which point it seems to me to be about a draw.

But it was the comparison of the two heavyweights that I was most surprised by. Honestly, I expected the Zeiss 85/1.2 to blow away the Canon. But it didn't, did it? It was marginally sharper at the corners at the wider open apertures, but other than that, I'd call it a draw.

Feeling much better about my Canon 85/1.2 now. Cool


I too was impressed by the Canon in this test, and the other that Orio showed earlier. It seems to be a very high quality optic. That said, one thing I loved from first sight with the 85 Planars was that at wide open there was a soft diffusion of contrast. This is very complimentary to portraits and close-ups of my subject matter (typically flowers). The 1.4 Planar in tight crops looks so sloppy, but it looks so good at full view.

I also noted that to a lesser degree than it's little brother - but in direct opposition to the Canon - the 1.2 Planar shows some of the same diffusion of contrast under f2. At f2, it suddenly vanishes. If you look at the actual edges of the lines at 1.2 on the Planar, they are tight, but there is a pale caste over everything. This is the sight of Zeiss' dreamy glow up close, almost like seeing a ghost Smile I'm pretty convinced by it's appearance on the 1.4 and the 1.2 - which seems to have more in common with the Canon design - that its something they mean to do.

Heck, even if they didn't, I'm relieved they didn't 'fix' it yet (it's on the ZK I had too). Its what attracted me to the design in the first place and now means a lot to me on my wide open shooting. There are precious few samples of bright, 1m, wide open Planar 1.2 shots out there for me to go on, so I'm really hoping that with the apparently smart IQ and still that pale diffusion that I'll be getting the best of both worlds when my copy arrives.

Kelly.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Even in the early 60s, back in the day of the R-series Canon SLRs, Canon produced a range of long telephotos -- from 600mm to 1200mm -- and I don't think any of their competitors had anything equivalent to them at the time.


Golden memories vs. reality:

Both Canon and Nikon launched 500-1000mm mirror lenses starting 1961, war later escalated to Nikon launching 2000mm mirror lens.


You're right on the teles. I should have consulted my references before writing the above. I knew Canon had built a 1200, but had forgotten that Nikon had also.

In my case, I wasn't relying on "golden memories," rather research I'd conducted, most of which I did back about 20 years ago.

Yeah, Nikon got into building super-size mirrors back then. I recall seeing the 2000mm once at a camera show. At the time I was pretty impressed. But then a year or so later I bought a Meade 10" f/11 telescope, a diffraction limited optic that was possible to use as a 2500mm lens, so to me, that old Nikkor wasn't so special anymore. In fact, back then I had two 10" telescopes. The other was a 10" Cave Newtonian. But I believe it was an f/8, so it was "only" a 2032mm lens. And being a Newtonian, it was also kind of awkward to use as a lens.

Leave us not forget the ginormous 5200mm mirror lens that Canon built back in the 60s also:

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/01/06/ginormous-5200mm-canon-lens-on-ebay/

And the EF 1200mm f/5.6 L they built up until 2005. Guess Nikon decided that a 2x TC with their 600mm was "good enough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0E-nZOlY_k

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html


Last edited by cooltouch on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:

Golden memories vs. reality:

Both Canon and Nikon launched 500-1000mm mirror lenses starting 1961, war later escalated to Nikon launching 2000mm mirror lens. Both Canon and Nikon had superteles (400-600-800-1200mm) from the early 1960s. By the early 1970s, both Japanese manufacturers had a wide range of superteles in production, though for both global sales figures were counted in hundreds more often than thousands.

I am sure someone who is better familiar with other SLR systems can verify that Canon and Nikon weren't the only ones to manufacture 600mm and longer superteles (mirror lenses not counted) in those years (1960s)


As far as I know there is a Takumar 1000mm/8, first built in 1957.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found two Pentax 1000mm f/8s in my references -- one is an SMC and one is a Tele-Takumar. Did a google search and almost all of those listings I found were for the SMC flavor.

I did find this:



And in fact, I found this thread here at mflenses, where member CarbonR posted some images taken with his early Pentax 1000mm f/8.

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=26813&view=next


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to the Asahi Optical Historical Club website:

Takumar 1000mm f/8 first version 1961
Takumar 1000mm f/8 second version 1962-5
Tele-Takumar 1000mm f/8 1965-71
S-M-C Takumar 1000mm f/8 1971-1976

This was replaced with the SMC "K" series 1000mm f/8 1975-1986. (Info from Bojidar Dimitrov's site.)

Pentax also produced a 1000mm f/11 mirror lens from 1977-2004, The A* 1200mm f/8 from 1986--2000 and K and M series 2000mm f/13.5 mirror lens from 1979-2004.

Many Pentaxians now bemoan the fact that the longest lens they now produce is the DA* 300 f/4...

K.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thePiRaTE!! wrote:

If you look at the actual edges of the lines at 1.2 on the Planar, they are tight, but there is a pale caste over everything. This is the sight of Zeiss' dreamy glow up close, almost like seeing a ghost Smile I'm pretty convinced by it's appearance on the 1.4 and the 1.2 - which seems to have more in common with the Canon design - that its something they mean to do.

If I understand what you mean, I would say it is also there in the 1.4/50 Planar.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:
thePiRaTE!! wrote:

If you look at the actual edges of the lines at 1.2 on the Planar, they are tight, but there is a pale caste over everything. This is the sight of Zeiss' dreamy glow up close, almost like seeing a ghost Smile I'm pretty convinced by it's appearance on the 1.4 and the 1.2 - which seems to have more in common with the Canon design - that its something they mean to do.

If I understand what you mean, I would say it is also there in the 1.4/50 Planar.


This is good to hear - I have not had the opportunity to try a Planar 50. Sounds like it will be to my liking character wise.

To clarify my point:

Using the link I posted to the comparison of the Canon and Planar 1.2. Go to the edge test at 1.2. It seems on first glance that the Planar is 'worse', but look closely. The smallest lines are easily counted on the Planar but muddled on the Canon. Further, looking at the center rings, the soft diffusion radiating off the white is 'The Glow ©' responsible for a dreamy effect when shooting wide open, yet not at the cost of IQ, only contrast. For me, it is the best of both worlds and if I may say so, line definition at the edge of the frame at 1.2 of that quality seems Shocked.

K.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
Are the 50 and 60 years identical (besides updated lens coatings, no doubt)?


As far as I know, they should be identical. It would also be quite tough after only 10 years of technological advancement to improve on a lens that is already on the edge of the unbeatable...
As for the coating, based on my experience as reported above, I don't think that the coating of the 50 years version could be much improvable either... Wink

_


Not that I doubted you, but I was curious if Zeiss still had a data sheet for the '82 around the office to compare to the '92. Reply as follows -

"Dear Kelly,

both types of the Planar T* 1,2/85 were optically identical and so showed the same optical performance.
So their data sheets were also identical, especially regarding MTF, distorsion and vignetting.

Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger"

I did also ask directly if there was any change in T* formulation during that time period but it was not addressed. It might also be safe to say no on that.


K.