| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
 Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 4:32 am Post subject: Fuji X-Fujinon 1:1.6 f=50mm DM |
 |
|
tb_a wrote:
As I finally got my Adapter for the old Fujica AX-bayonet onto NEX (unfortunately nothing available to Leica-M nor to M39) I could finally test this lens on digital the first time myself. This lens was tested by a famous German Photo magazine in 1985 and found to be the best lens available in Germany money could buy. So it was beating everything like Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, etc... in this class of testes lenses in 50mm with maximum aperture higher than 1:1.5 and lower than 1:2 (average 1:1.7). Only the tested Leica one was the Summicron-R at 1:2.
However, at F5.6 Fuji was best. Fully open all had their weaknesses in different disciplines. At F:1.6 the Fuji was rather average compared to the others. It was the fastest lens of the test of total 17 lenses.
Just to show (quick and dirty) samples as this lens performs in 3 different apertures on Sony NEX-C3. Only resized to show here. No manipulation as usually. Strange coloring of flowers resulted from strong glossy direct sunlight at this time of the day. For the fully open aperture shot I had to turn to this rather ugly perspective as I had no grey filters on hand. However, this are just samples and I only wanted to show the different characteristics at given apertures.
1. F=1.6
2. F=5.6
3. F=11
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3705
Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Thanks for sharing Thomas. I like both 50mm and 55mm Fujica F1.6 lenses. Special is also F2.2 model. Shooting wide-open on full frame those three offer even cooler experience.
I also own NEX-C3 and i'd like to propose you tweak WB and other settings of inner camera engine like Creative Style with options so the Jpegs are what you want them to be.
It is imho not manipulation but getting most out of the lens. Sometimes the AI gets it and sometimes it needs some help.
_________________
---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| Pancolart wrote: |
I also own NEX-C3 and i'd like to propose you tweak WB and other settings of inner camera engine like Creative Style with options so the Jpegs are what you want them to be.
It is imho not manipulation but getting most out of the lens. Sometimes the AI gets it and sometimes it needs some help. |
I know. But for pure lens testing purposes I really prefer to shoot just plain RAW and convert it to JPG in Lightroom without any further tweaking. That's the best way to compare apples with apples and not apples with eggs. 
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I had the non-EBC 1.6/50 and it wasn't very good at all, it had the most prominent CA I have ever seen and stopping down didn't get rid of the CA until f8! I wonder if I had a damaged/faulty copy? I also had the earlier 1.6/55 and thought that was a really good lens. The 2.2/55 is a different kettle of fish, a budget lens and it shows, can be sharp enough at close to medium distances but often produces sub-par results.
I really like Fujinon glass, but have to say that the X-Fujinon series is very much a mixed bag, with some great lenses like the 3.5/28, 1.6/55, 2.5/100 and 2.5/135 but also some mediocre ones like the 1.9/50, 2.2/55 and 4.5/200. By contrast, the TV-Fujinon c-mount lenses are all superb.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I had the non-EBC 1.6/50 and it wasn't very good at all, it had the most prominent CA I have ever seen and stopping down didn't get rid of the CA until f8! I wonder if I had a damaged/faulty copy? I also had the earlier 1.6/55 and thought that was a really good lens. The 2.2/55 is a different kettle of fish, a budget lens and it shows, can be sharp enough at close to medium distances but often produces sub-par results.
I really like Fujinon glass, but have to say that the X-Fujinon series is very much a mixed bag, with some great lenses like the 3.5/28, 1.6/55, 2.5/100 and 2.5/135 but also some mediocre ones like the 1.9/50, 2.2/55 and 4.5/200. By contrast, the TV-Fujinon c-mount lenses are all superb. |
I am somehow surprised by your statement. Actually the EBC and the non-EBC versions are totally identical (also sold under "Porst" brand name), besides a different coating of the front lens. That doesn't matter on digital anyway. The design as such derived from the 55mm/F1.6 lens which was available before first as M42 lens and later also as AX-mount lens. All my 50/55mm ones seem to have the same quality so far. At least I didn't realize any differences up to now. Before I migrated to Minolta I had tried to built up a Fujica AX system, so I still have some equipment on hand (somewhere).
You are absolutely right, that some of their lenses in other focus lengths have been sub-standard some others not. The 50's generally not. I will do some comparisons later this year, i.e. "The big 50's shoot out". I am wondering whether the Fuji will be also my winner. That remains to be seen anyway. However, at least from the first trials Fuji is at least still in the game.
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radissimo77
Joined: 20 May 2011
Posts: 111
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
radissimo77 wrote:
I am fond of few Fujinons, but I agree they are mixed bag.
MY Fujinon-x 50/2.2 was one of the worst lenses I had-lets start with a positives: small, good focusing ring..that's it
otherwise-soft and glowy wide open (@2.2!), plasticky, horrible bokeh (I know it is subjective),MFD=0.6m
I don't have 50/1.6 DM but not planning to buy it due MFD and more expensive adapter ,but it seems like nicer lens than above one, I hope it is at least...
Cheers,
Rado
_________________
Sony A7 ,A7s, 5T, Ricoh GR,Pana LX100, Canon G7x...& too many MF lenses to list |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| radissimo77 wrote: |
I am fond of few Fujinons, but I agree they are mixed bag.
MY Fujinon-x 50/2.2 was one of the worst lenses I had-lets start with a positives: small, good focusing ring..that's it
otherwise-soft and glowy wide open (@2.2!), plasticky, horrible bokeh (I know it is subjective),MFD=0.6m
I don't have 50/1.6 DM but not planning to buy it due MFD and more expensive adapter ,but it seems like nicer lens than above one, I hope it is at least...
|
I never had such a lens. However I believe you. I know other dead ducks from Fuji....
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Rado means the 2.2/55, and his description does fit it rather well.
I realise the EBC and non-EBC versions are the same apart from coatings, but the EBC really does make a visible difference. If you happen to have both EBC and non-EBC versions of one of the X-Fujinons you could maybe do a test? I hunt for the EBC versions but they seem less common, sadly most Fujinons are quite hard to find in England.
The less good X-Fujinons are the last ones released, due to the economic climate, Fuji cut costs and released some cheaper models, and it is those that are less good. Konica did a similar thing at the same time, releasing the 1.8/40, 1.8/50 and a plastic 35-70 kit zoom as cheaper items and replacing the 7 element 3.5/28 with a cheaper to manufacture 5 element one. These late Konicas are fine lenses but can't match the highs of the lenses they replaced such as the superb 1.7/50. In the X-Fujinon realm, the 1.9/50 replaced the 1.8/55 and is less good, very much cheaper build quality. The 1.8/55 came in both EBC and non-EBC whereas they never applied EBC to the 1.9/50, relegating it to strictly budget status behind the 1.6 lenses.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I realise the EBC and non-EBC versions are the same apart from coatings, but the EBC really does make a visible difference. If you happen to have both EBC and non-EBC versions of one of the X-Fujinons you could maybe do a test? I hunt for the EBC versions but they seem less common, sadly most Fujinons are quite hard to find in England. |
I'll do a search and come back tomorrow....
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3666
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
The 28/1.9 is awesome, but rare.
The 55/3.5 macro is top notch.
I really want the 100/2.8
My 135/2.8 non-EBC seems good.
The 19/3.5 I had was a dud.
I did like my 50/1.6, but found the MFD to be a bit too far, so I modded mine, I explained what I did in another X-Fujinon thread.
http://forum.mflenses.com/x-fujinon-1-9-50-mfd-hack-t70292.html
_________________
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
| Lightshow wrote: |
My 135/2.8 non-EBC seems good. |
this lens isn't build by Fuji
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1,
Sorry, having searched for my Fujinon lenses in this focal length, I've only found 1 EBC version which is actually the 55mm/1.8 (M42).
Besides that I have each one copy of 55mm/1.6, 50mm/1.6 and 50mm/1.9 (all in AX-mount) and non-EBC.
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks for the info. I don't have EBC and non-EBC of the same lens either.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| Thanks for the info. I don't have EBC and non-EBC of the same lens either. |
However, I've seen some EBC versions of the 50mm/1.6 lens which is by the way 100% identical to the Porst UMC version for approx. 60 Euros on Ebay if you really like to add one of these...
Sometimes you also get an AX-1 with lens for less compared to the price for the lens alone. I've seen already offers for 10 to 20 Euro including EBC lens.
I am done with my 4 different versions already...
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3666
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
| Tedat wrote: |
| Lightshow wrote: |
My 135/2.8 non-EBC seems good. |
this lens isn't build by Fuji |
Interesting, it's parts all look just like the parts from my other X-Fujinon lenses, what's your source for this?
_________________
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 2.8/135 X-Fujinar is made by Komine, it was also seen as an X-Kominar.
The 3.5/135 X-Fujinon is made by Fuji, as is the 2.5/135 X-Fujinon.
I have the 2.8/135 X-Fujinar and it is a very well made lens, good performer, but lacks the outstanding colours and contrast of the EBC Fujinon 135s.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| Lightshow wrote: |
| Tedat wrote: |
| Lightshow wrote: |
My 135/2.8 non-EBC seems good. |
this lens isn't build by Fuji |
Interesting, it's parts all look just like the parts from my other X-Fujinon lenses, what's your source for this? |
According to this site the F2.5 is Fuji and the F2.8 is Kominar: http://www.billead.com/fujinon/#lenses
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
| Lightshow wrote: |
| Interesting, it's parts all look just like the parts from my other X-Fujinon lenses |
now thats interesting too... all 2.8/135mm for x-Fuji I ever saw looked a bit different. You have a photo from your lens? Oh and is it named Fujinon or Fujinar?
The Fujinar is build by Komine and also avaible as Kominar and Porst GMC 2.8/135 X-M:
About my source(s).. yes billead.com was one of them... but you can read this on different websites, on every source they talked about a 2.8/135 x-Fujinar and not x-Fujinon (same thing with the 28mm x-Fuji lenses: 2.8/28mm = Fujinar (made by Komine) and 3.5/28mm Fujinon)
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
räuber
Joined: 13 Nov 2021
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
räuber wrote:
Very old topic.
I finished testing my 50mm lenses. One of them is a X-Fujinon 50mm F1.6 DM. In a comparison with a lot of Zeiss glass it came out on top! So I have to agree with this old article from a German magazine that this very cheap lens is one of the best money can buy.
I compared the Fuji 50mm F1.6 DM with Zeiss Jena Practicar / Pancolar 50mm F1.4, Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8, Sony (Zeiss) 55mm F1.8 ZA, Meyer Görlitz Oreston 50mm F1.8, Voigtländer Nokton 50mm F1.5 II and the old Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50mm F1.5 on a Sony A7R III (42MP).
Strange Aperture
* this lens has a strange aperture ring: 1.6 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 - 11 - 16 (2.0 is missing)
* the aperture ring has only full stops and it is not possible to halt it between those stops
* after a lot of testing and comparison with other lenses I think the aperture ring is wrong!
* I think the correct aperture stops are: 1.6 - 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 - 11
* keep this in mind when you read my notes!
Fuji Infinity Test
* center at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest center with very good contrast (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v2)
* corners at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: mediocre (best corners Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at (F1. 2.0: second sharpest center (best Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* corners at (F1. 2.0: mediocre (best Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 2.8: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8
* corners at 2.8: second sharpest (best best corners Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 4.0: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* corners at 4.0: second with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 (best Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 5.6: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* corners at 5.6: best with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1
Fuji 1m Test
* center at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest center with very good contrast (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1 with a lot of glow)
* borders at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest (with very close second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* corners at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest (with very close second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* borders at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* corners at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 2.8: sharpest (second Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v2)
* borders at 2.8: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* corners at 2.8: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 4.0: sharpest with Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1 (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* borders at 4.0: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4)
* corners at 4.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 5.6: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* borders at 5.6: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8
* corners at 5.6: very close second (best Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.[/list] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Thank you!
I still didn't manage to run a test of all of my 50mm lenses.
However, last year I did compare all my better lenses for infinity landscape on my Sony A7R2 and again Fuji was outstanding here:
Only the AX Fujinon EBC 50/1.2 and the Sony FE 50/1.8 managed to deliver really sharp pictures at F5.6 from edge to edge.
All others failed in direct comparison or needed even smaller apertures to be on the same level.
However, this result is only true for the A7R2 and R3 and might be different on other cameras.
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pabeu
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pabeu wrote:
| räuber wrote: |
Very old topic.
I finished testing my 50mm lenses. One of them is a X-Fujinon 50mm F1.6 DM. In a comparison with a lot of Zeiss glass it came out on top! So I have to agree with this old article from a German magazine that this very cheap lens is one of the best money can buy.
I compared the Fuji 50mm F1.6 DM with Zeiss Jena Practicar / Pancolar 50mm F1.4, Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8, Sony (Zeiss) 55mm F1.8 ZA, Meyer Görlitz Oreston 50mm F1.8, Voigtländer Nokton 50mm F1.5 II and the old Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50mm F1.5 on a Sony A7R III (42MP).
Strange Aperture
* this lens has a strange aperture ring: 1.6 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 - 11 - 16 (2.0 is missing)
* the aperture ring has only full stops and it is not possible to halt it between those stops
* after a lot of testing and comparison with other lenses I think the aperture ring is wrong!
* I think the correct aperture stops are: 1.6 - 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 - 11
* keep this in mind when you read my notes!
Fuji Infinity Test
* center at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest center with very good contrast (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v2)
* corners at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: mediocre (best corners Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at (F1. 2.0: second sharpest center (best Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* corners at (F1. 2.0: mediocre (best Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 2.8: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8
* corners at 2.8: second sharpest (best best corners Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 4.0: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* corners at 4.0: second with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 (best Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at 5.6: head to head with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* corners at 5.6: best with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1
Fuji 1m Test
* center at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest center with very good contrast (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1 with a lot of glow)
* borders at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest (with very close second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* corners at (F1.4 / F1.5 /) 1.6: sharpest (with very close second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1)
* center at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* borders at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* corners at (F1. 2.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 2.8: sharpest (second Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v2)
* borders at 2.8: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* corners at 2.8: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 4.0: sharpest with Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4 v1 (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.
* borders at 4.0: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 (second Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4)
* corners at 4.0: sharpest (second Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.
* center at 5.6: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8 and Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.4
* borders at 5.6: sharpest with Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.8
* corners at 5.6: very close second (best Zeiss Ultron 50mm F1.[/list] |
Was the tested Fuji the EBC or non-EBC one?
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Well, my understanding is that this thread deals with the non-EBC version as otherwise the name of this lens would be EBC X-Fujinon instead.
However, having a couple of these Fujinon fifties I have to point out that I never realized visible differences between these EBC and non-EBC versions.
But I also have to point out that I never made any special flare test in direct comparison. Flare resistance might be different but all other disciplines most likely not.
Slightly different color renderings don't have any importance any longer on digital anyway since this could be easily modified in PP, but I couldn't dedect this as mentioned before.
It might also be worth mentioning that there are in total 6 different F1.6 lenses:
3 in 50mm, 1 M42 and 2 AX-mount (with and without EBC marking) and
3 in 55mm, 1 M42 and 2 AX-mount (with and without EBC marking).
The most obvious difference between the 50 and 55mm versions is the different bokeh rendering caused by different lens construction schema, i.e. the 50mm lens is 6/6 and the 55mm one is 5/4.
Unfortunately I never managed to see the lens construction drawing of the 50/1.6 lens, would be happy if anybody is able to post it here.
No other lens comes to my mind with a 6/6 schema, so I'm really curios about that.
BTW, most of these Fujinons can be found with "Porst" branding as well. Porst was a rather huge German distributor of photo equipment and sold these Fujica cameras and lenses under their own branding.
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
räuber
Joined: 13 Nov 2021
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
räuber wrote:
Well, my lens has no EBC writing so I think it is the non-EBC version.
Take my results with a little grain of salt. It is hard work to test several lenses at different distances and different apertures at the same time. I had to redo the infinity tests several times because weather changes within one hour made the images harder to compare. My infinity background is not flat and one corner might be further away than the other. And all of my lenses are decentered. And even when I shot 3 or 4 images at every aperture setting there is room for (focus) error and misinterpretation.
The hardest thing to do is the evaluation of the results. Sometimes it is difficult to rate one result higher than the other. For example the Pancolar lenses are hazy wide open. But the details are there. If you compare this to another lens with no haze but with dropped detail softness in the corners it might get to the point where both score the same rating even if the results show different weak points. And the most difficult ratings are where the lenses are sharp. From F2.8 and F4.0 there might be no point in comparing sharpness in the center anymore. Even the Zeiss Opton is tack sharp in the center at F5.6. And it is so close that doing the same test again the winner might be another lens.
Long story short the Fuji 50mm F1.6 DM surprised me the most. Even the clear favorite the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 loses ground against it (and the Zeiss Ultron). I don't like the corners of the Sony Zeiss. They are good but they look a little bit fake. The Pancolar v1 is the better landscape lens.
The Pancolar v1 (radioactive) is the best landscape lens of the tested 50ies. This was the second surprise to me. It has the best corners of them all. The haze wide open does not allow for landscapes at F1.4 but the details are already there. And at 2.8 the corners are almost perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
