View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
The comparison looks interesting. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008 Posts: 416 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
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. _________________ kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
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. |
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 _________________ Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
Last edited by Nikos on Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 123
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Interesting. Just ignoring the Zeiss, seems to be noticeably different results with the Canon lens between the two sites. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
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
It is interesting to compare these lenses with their Zeiss equivalents in the ZE series. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. 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) _________________ Vilhelm
Nikon DSLR: D4, D800, Nikon D3, D70
Nikon SLR: Nikon F100, Nikon FM2n
Nikkor MF: 20/2.8 Ai-S, 24/2 Ai-S, 24/2.8 Ai-S, 28/2 Ai-S, 28/2.8 Ai-S, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 Ai-S, 45/2.8 GN, 50/1.2 Ai, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 50/1.4 Ai, 50/1.4 Ai-S, 50/1.8 AI-S "long", 50/1.8 AI-S "short", 55/1.2 Ai, 85/1.4 Ai-S, 85/1.8H, 105/2.5 Ai, 135/2.8Q, 135/3.5 Ai, 180/2.8 Ai-S ED
Nikkor AF/AF-S FX: 14-24/2.8G, 16/2.8D Fisheye, 16-35/4G VR, 17-35/2.8D, 24/1.4G, 24/3.5D PC-E, 24/2.8D, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.4D, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 60/2.8 Micro, 60/2.8G Micro, 70-200/2.8G VR, 70-200/2.8G VR II, 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR, 85/1.4G, 85/2.8D PC-E Micro, 105/2D DC, 105/2.8G VR Micro, 135/2D DC, 200/2G VR, 200-400/4G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 300/4D ED, 400/2.8G VR, 800/5.6E VR
Nikkor AF/AF-S DX: 10.5/2.8G Fisheye, 12-24/4G, 18-70/3.5-4.5G
Topcor: Auto-Topcor 58/1.4,
Voigtländer SL: 40/2 Ultron, 58/1.4 Nokton, 75/2.5 Color-Heliar, 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar, 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar, 180/4 APO-Lanthar
Zeiss ZF: Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF
M42 SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM
M42: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.4, Tessar 50/2.8 T, Super-Takumar 55/1.8, Biotar 58/2 T, Pentacon 135/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5
Medium format: several Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 Opton-Tessar 80mm f/2.8, Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 Opton-Tessar 75mm f/3.5
Leica: R7, M4, Super-Angulon-R 4/21, Elmarit-R 2.8/28, Summicron-R 2/35, Summicron-M 2/35, Summicron-M 2/50, Elmarit-R 2,8/180 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008 Posts: 416 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
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. |
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 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. _________________ kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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 _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 123
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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 _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
womble
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 Posts: 987 Location: Hertfordshire
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
womble wrote:
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. _________________ Kris Lockyear
Digital: Pentax K-3iii
35mm film SLRs: various Pentax bodies from a H2 to a SF7, favourites the MX and LX
Rangefinder: Zeiss Super Ikonta IV, FED2, Zorkii-4, Industar 26m, Jupiter 8, 11 and 12 lenses
Medium format: various folders, Yashica Mat 124 G. Lubitel 2
LF: Horseman LE 5x4 view camera.
MF lenses (favourites) Pentax "K" 200mm f/2.5; "K" 135mm f/2.5; "K" 50mm f/1.2; "K" 35mm f/2; "K" 30mm f/2.8; "K" 28mm f/3.5 shift; "K" 15mm f/3.5; M 100mm f/2.8; M 40mm f/2.8; Jupiter-9 85mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos 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 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008 Posts: 416 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
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 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 .
K. _________________ kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008 Posts: 416 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
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...
_ |
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. _________________ kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|