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

Leica Elmar 135mm f/4 compared with others
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:00 pm    Post subject: Leica Elmar 135mm f/4 compared with others Reply with quote
EDIT: I removed the images of my first test because of possible inaccuracies. Please scroll down for my second test.

Today I decided to compare the Leica Elmar 135mm f/4 with other 135mm lenses in my collection. Note that it is a limited comparison, mainly focusing on detail resolution. The list of lenses in this test:

- aus Jena Electric MC 135/3.5 (Sonnar)
- Konica Hexanon 135/3.2
- Preset Takumar 135/3.5 (all black version)
- SMC Takumar 135/3.5
- Kyoei Optical 135/2.8
- Leica Elmar 135/4

Camera used: Sony A7R2

First an overview of the full image:
[removed, see newest test]

First, 100% crops of the fastest lens of the bunch, the Kyoei Optical @ f/2.8:
[removed, see newest test]

Pretty good detail resolution in the center. Softer image of the corner, not too bad though.

Then, the f/3.5 (and f/3.2) lenses compared wide open:
[removed, see newest test]

The Sonnar easily beats the other lenses in center detail resolution. What about the corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail resolution of the Sonnar. Visible CA's though.

Then, lenses compared @ f/4:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail resolution of the Sonnar and the Kyoei (!).
Then the corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best the Sonnar, second the Preset Takumar.

Then. Comparison @ f/5.6:
[removed, see newest test]

Best IMO are Sonnar, Preset Takumar and Kyoei. Differences between the three are small. The Kyoei is a little less contrasty.

Corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best Sonnar, followed by preset Takumar.

Then, f/8:
[removed, see newest test]

Best detail of Sonnar, Preset Takumar and Elmar.

Corners:
[removed, see newest test]

Best Sonnar, second Preset Takumar.

I'm probably going to do another comparison with these lenses, as I'm not completely sure that the focusing was 100% accurate. I'm probably going to choose a subject that is easier to accurately focus on.

Based on this first test I come to the following conclusions. I will later try to verify whether these conclusions are actually accurate:

1) Best overall: Sonnar 135/3.5
2) Kyoei 135/2.8: very good center resolution
3) Preset Takumar (5 element) seems slightly better than later 4 element version.
4) Elmar perofrmance not too remarkable compared to the other lenses.

Last edited by caspert79 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:42 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting comparison.
Leica's light flux has been defeated. Zeiss Vader reigns supreme.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Simple question (and the reason I only publish tests at infinity) - how do you insure that you corner subject is exactly on the same level as the center subject (perpendicular to the sensor)?

S


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you! for test!

(anybody know of flash shoe mounted laser pointer to assist consistent aim of lenses?)


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Simple question (and the reason I only publish tests at infinity) - how do you insure that you corner subject is exactly on the same level as the center subject (perpendicular to the sensor)?

S


Exactly, I’m not 100% sure. I can measure this out precisely in my next test and use a flat subject (poster). Of course, infinity tests are the easier way to do it, but I don’t have infinity view from my house, and results can differ between infinity and close focus subjects.

Still I wonder how important flat field focus is for general close focus photography. Another way I could do the test, is to seperately focus the corners from the center, so you can judge corner performance without the need of a flat field focus. Probably this resembles more closely a real life situation, in which you focus on a subject on the edge of the frame. I’m curious about your opinion on that.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FWIW, this doesn't change my opinion of the Elmar at all. It's the best old 135. I base this on shooting hundreds of images with it at all apertures under a multitude of different conditions.

The Sonnars (4 and 3.5) are close for sure, but I prefer the Elmar's bokeh and overall rendering, and a number of other factors including size and ergonomics.

Other favorites of mine include the Rodenstock Yronar and the old slim-bodied CZJ Triotar - that Triotar is never going to win a comparison like this. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
FWIW, this doesn't change my opinion of the Elmar at all. It's the best old 135. I base this on shooting hundreds of images with it at all apertures under a multitude of different conditions.

The Sonnars (4 and 3.5) are close for sure, but I prefer the Elmar's bokeh and overall rendering, and a number of other factors including size and ergonomics.

Other favorites of mine include the Rodenstock Yronar and the old slim-bodied CZJ Triotar - that Triotar is never going to win a comparison like this. Very Happy


Sure, this is only a limited test. And I’m not sure I nailed the focus either. It’s harder to do on a slow lens. I’m curious about the Yronar; I didn’t see it for sale too often.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Simple question (and the reason I only publish tests at infinity) - how do you insure that you corner subject is exactly on the same level as the center subject (perpendicular to the sensor)?

S


Exactly, I’m not 100% sure. I can measure this out precisely in my next test and use a flat subject (poster). Of course, infinity tests are the easier way to do it, but I don’t have infinity view from my house, and results can differ between infinity and close focus subjects.


Result certainly can differ betwen infinity and close focus - and that's why I enjoy looking at your tests!

caspert79 wrote:
Still I wonder how important flat field focus is for general close focus photography.

Usually it's probably not very important - unless you do reproductions of flat objects (paintings, drawings, and the like).

caspert79 wrote:
Another way I could do the test, is to seperately focus the corners from the center, so you can judge corner performance without the need of a flat field focus. Probably this resembles more closely a real life situation, in which you focus on a subject on the edge of the frame. I’m curious about your opinion on that.

That might be an idea, for sure. I have done it on very rare occasions (basically with a few Cooke type triplets such as the Minolta 4/135mm or the Novoflex T-Noflexar 5.6/400mm), always clearly stating the deviation from my usual testing routine.

On the other hand you might also choose to have three identical, flat test charts of some kind (may very well be the label of a bottle of good wine!) mounted on a wall. Maybe spaced 1 m each ... then you may place the camera exactly at the same distance between the two outer test charts. Should be pretty accurate if you use e. g. a laser distance meter (putting its back side to the central screw on your tripod) or even two strings of exactly the same length. Of course then the whole "bokeh" issue isn't adressed any more ...

I don't have an easy answer; but maybe others have some better ideas?!?

S


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Simple question (and the reason I only publish tests at infinity) - how do you insure that you corner subject is exactly on the same level as the center subject (perpendicular to the sensor)?

S


Exactly, I’m not 100% sure. I can measure this out precisely in my next test and use a flat subject (poster). Of course, infinity tests are the easier way to do it, but I don’t have infinity view from my house, and results can differ between infinity and close focus subjects.


Result certainly can differ betwen infinity and close focus - and that's why I enjoy looking at your tests!

caspert79 wrote:
Still I wonder how important flat field focus is for general close focus photography.

Usually it's probably not very important - unless you do reproductions of flat objects (paintings, drawings, and the like).

caspert79 wrote:
Another way I could do the test, is to seperately focus the corners from the center, so you can judge corner performance without the need of a flat field focus. Probably this resembles more closely a real life situation, in which you focus on a subject on the edge of the frame. I’m curious about your opinion on that.

That might be an idea, for sure. I have done it on very rare occasions (basically with a few Cooke type triplets such as the Minolta 4/135mm or the Novoflex T-Noflexar 5.6/400mm), always clearly stating the deviation from my usual testing routine.

On the other hand you might also choose to have three identical, flat test charts of some kind (may very well be the label of a bottle of good wine!) mounted on a wall. Maybe spaced 1 m each ... then you may place the camera exactly at the same distance between the two outer test charts. Should be pretty accurate if you use e. g. a laser distance meter (putting its back side to the central screw on your tripod) or even two strings of exactly the same length. Of course then the whole "bokeh" issue isn't adressed any more ...

I don't have an easy answer; but maybe others have some better ideas?!?

S


Definitely not an answer to the above- just a bit of user experience...

I've had 3 flat-field formula lenses over the years, and they are mostly okay for general and close-up photography.
The lenses were:

Nikkor 55mm 3.5 P.C. micro

Vivitar 55mm 2.8 close focusing

Vivitar 135mm 2.8 close focusing.

Both 55's would let me know when something was off kilter on my hurry up bubble levelled flat copy stand- especially at very close focus distance.
The usual sign was a slightly out of focus area off to one side of the subject.
The solution was to either level the subject, or the camera.
I did not use the 135 much for close copy work- it's crop area was a little too weird for most of the artwork I was reproducing.
The job required transparencies for slide presentations, and I sat through one showing just to judge the quality of my work, which I would term just slightly better than passable.

Of the 3 lenses, the P.C. Micro is the sharpest, but sharpness is not everything.
It tends to display very slight barrel distortion when used towards infinity e.g.: landscapes.
That is probably one of the reasons that the lens formula was changed for the modern "micro" variants.
Does it really matter?

It depends on what you are using the lens for.
I'd say the flat-field formula is still pretty tough to beat for exact close focus reproduction work.
For anything else, as usual, there are other choices.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Stevemark
Thanks for your suggestions. I've thought as well about a test chart and two identical strings. I think for now I will test center and corners independently. It will make the testing procedure simpler, and it makes sense to me, at least for non-macro lenses.

@Doc
Thanks for your reaction. I've experience with those three lenses as well. I still use the Nikkor 55/3.5 for product photography because it's so sharp, but it's true the later 55/2.8 has less distortion. I believe the Vivitar 135/2.8 CF is actually not a flat field lens; it just looks an awful lot like the Vivitar 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 which are flat focus.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
FWIW, this doesn't change my opinion of the Elmar at all. It's the best old 135. I base this on shooting hundreds of images with it at all apertures under a multitude of different conditions.

The Sonnars (4 and 3.5) are close for sure, but I prefer the Elmar's bokeh and overall rendering, and a number of other factors including size and ergonomics.


100% in agreement!

BTW, the only direct comparison for pixel peeping purposes I made up to now with my other 135mm lenses (incl. Sonnars and Takumars, etc.) I made at infinity landscape and there the Elmar was definitely best.
That's the reason why the Elmar is nowadays my 135mm lens of choice and all other 135mm ones are only collecting dust.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe you, I've seen infinity images of the Elmar that were very sharp from corner to corner. I think for now we can ignore the results of the first test. Later on I will do a test and take better control of a few factors:

- use a flatter structure in the center of the frame
- use a lamp to brighten the subject so nailing the focus is much easier
- focus the corners independently of the center


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not surprised that the winner is the Sonnar. Neither was I surprised at the SMC Tak being only average.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:


@Doc
I believe the Vivitar 135/2.8 CF is actually not a flat field lens; it just looks an awful lot like the Vivitar 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 which are flat focus.


It was sold to me as a flat-field lens, used, way back in the late 70's, and I ran with it quite a while.
One of my better multi-purpose lenses, if even a little tight for repro work.
Back then, little was known about vivitar and the way their glass was made.
A bit of misinformation?
Perhaps, and very likely.
It reacted in similar fashion to out of level subjects in close focus mode, but I'm sure no optics expert.
There are images posted on this site taken with all 3 lenses.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I'm not surprised that the winner is the Sonnar. Neither was I surprised at the SMC Tak being only average.


I'm running a more accurate test, and the Takumar may actually surprise you. I hope to post it tomorrow.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 small Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, it took me some effort to find the best test conditions. I tried a wine bottle label first, but it was too difficult to see differences between certain lenses. So finally took a €20 bill. I pointed quite a strong light in the direction of the bill, to make accurate focusing possible. Here are the results. Note: the corners are focused independently of the center, so its no flat focus field test.

Center @ f/2.8:
Crops28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

A bit shocked how good the Kyoei is, especially compared to the not-so-shabby Mamiya. Seems to be a different in contrast.

Corner @ f/2.8:
CropsComparison28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

OK, here is where the Mamiya far superior to the Kyoei.

Then, center @ f/3.5:
Crops35 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar first, the SMC Takumar very close.

Corners @ f/3.5:
Cropscomparison35 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Didn't expect the Hexanon to be that good at this aperture in the corners. Best of the bunch, and at a wider aperture.

Center, at f/4:
Crops4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Very hard to choose a winner here. All lenses do pretty good.

I think the Sonnar wins by a very slight margin. Second: I think a shared position between the Elmar and the SMC Takumar (!), which is a big surprise. Look at the detail in the red parts. The Mamiya shows similar detail, but has a bit less contrast.

Then, corners @ f/4:
Cropscomparison4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Here the Hexanon shows how excellent it is once stopped down a little. Look at the little eyes at the upper rim of the frame. First Hexanon, Sonnar second, Elmar third.

Center @ f/5.6:
Crops56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar wins here by very very slight margin, most lenses are very good at this aperture.

Corner @ f/5.6:
Cropscomparison56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Sonnar, then Hexanon, then Elmar & Mamiya. But most lenses very close.

Center @ f/8:
Crops8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

I would say the Sonnar, I couldn't tell which one is number 2.

Corner @ f/8:
Cropscomparison8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Very hard to decide at this setting, I think the Mamiya or Hexanon show most detail.
Some interesting results:
- Very good overall performance of Sonnar.
- Extreme good performance of Hexanon 135/3.2 from f/4 and smaller, especially the corners.
- Center performance of Kyoei 135/2.8 wide open; will be very interesting to use for special purposes.
- More than solid results of the SMC Takumar (especially in the center).
- The Elmar seems to have no weak settings. Very good both in center and corner, but not the very sharpest at all settings.

I think the Hexanon and the Sonnar are the winners in this test. Of course there are more things to consider in a lens, for instance ergonomics, flare resistance, circular bokeh etc...


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting, thanks for the effort. I love the Sonnar, but I was not expecting such good results with it. I disliked the Hexanon 3.2, even being a Konica fan, but it was maybe my copy, I have only tried one.
About the Sonnar, I once compared 2 copies of the m42 mount and one with Praktica B mount and results were identical (which is probably expected, but just in case).


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:
Very interesting, thanks for the effort. I love the Sonnar, but I was not expecting such good results with it. I disliked the Hexanon 3.2, even being a Konica fan, but it was maybe my copy, I have only tried one.
About the Sonnar, I once compared 2 copies of the m42 mount and one with Praktica B mount and results were identical (which is probably expected, but just in case).


The qualities of the Hexanon 135/3.2 may not be evident so quickly. After all, you have to stop down a bit for really good results across the frame.

The Sonnar surprised me more than a few times. I’m not entirely sure about its flatness of focal field, because I didn’t test that here. in earlier tests I did, the Mamiya SX was better in that regard (at infinity at least), which could be important in shooting landscapes. From what I’ve seen on the web, the Elmar should also be excellent in that regard.The Hexanon as well, when stopped down.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What I see is that Zeiss Vader still reigns supreme.
However, these were still at close focus distances and not infinity? Is that correct?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
What I see is that Zeiss Vader still reigns supreme.
However, these were still at close focus distances and not infinity? Is that correct?


Correct, just over 2m distance.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I’m curious about the Yronar; I didn’t see it for sale too often.


It's very nice, both optically and mechanically. It's the only Rodenstock lens I own (I actually have two of them now, since I found a bargain price on one recently), and it's good enough that it makes me interested in the brand. Unfortunately old Rodenstock lenses are expensive collectibles.

My two Yronars seem to have equally good performance, which gives me a bit of confidence that sample variation is minimal.

I also have two Elmars, and they're the same way - both excellent.

I have two 135 3.5 Sonnars and one is better than the other. I also have three 135 4 Sonnars. The best one is a Contax RF mount, and I would say it's my best old Sonnar - even better than the 135 3.5 versions.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting. Is there any way to adapt Contax rf lenses to mirrorless camera's?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the effort to reach the consistency. I was also impressed with the Sonnar in your first set. It looks like a very capable lens in all types of use. I acknowledge that in real life you may see less difference, and then processing may change the rendering quite considerably. In the meantime Sonnar seems to give an especially pleasant balance between sharpness and punch.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Interesting. Is there any way to adapt Contax rf lenses to mirrorless camera's?


Yes, definitely. As you may be aware, the Contax RF mount has an internal bayonet for small lenses, like the 50mm Sonnar f/2 and f/1.5, and an external bayonet for larger lenses like the 85mm and 135mm Sonnars.

You can easily find inexpensive Ukrainian adapters made from old Kiev cameras. These have both the internal and external bayonets, and while I find them to be fine for the smaller internal CRF lenses, they're not durable enough for the larger, heavier external mount CRF lenses.

I bought a Kipon CRF adapter that is for the external bayonet only. It's machined from a single piece of metal so it's super strong, and it's just great - my favorite adapter actually. It sold me on the idea that really well-made adapters are worth the cost, at least if you're going to use them a lot.

I'm not saying you should buy a Kipon brand adapter, but if you want to try CRF mount 85s and 135s, get a dedicated CRF external adapter.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2