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

Leitz Wetzlar Photar 25mm vs Laowa 25mm at f11
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:56 pm    Post subject: Leitz Wetzlar Photar 25mm vs Laowa 25mm at f11 Reply with quote

Long before Laowa lenses were heard of, I built up a small collection of specialist, legacy macro lenses to, potentially, use in my everyday macro work. I tried some of these, other remaining unused. The Photar 25mm was one I had even forgotten about. I thought it would be interesting to compare it with my copy of the Laowa 25mm x2.5 to x5 in my particular working conditions (outside, no tripod).

There being little room for error with such little DOF, such a comparison can only be indicative and not definitive. I shot a lot of images with both lenses at x 2.5*and x 5* set on the Laowa and with the Photar extended to match the FOVs#. Most of these were at nominal f11, with a few at f16. Not enough f16 were good enough for meaningful comparisons. I chose the best of the f11s for posting here. * On 2x crop of m4/3 so x5 and x10 FF equivalent.# 7mm and 3.5mm.

Having looked at recent prices of the Photar, I was looking forward to selling it and carrying on with the Laowa. it was only when I had picked the best of the images and processed them that I began to feel more fond of the Photar. Smile

Because of the short working distance (ca half that of the Laowa) I used two flash units instead of my usual three.

The images are uncropped and all treated identically for NR, sharpening, etc.

The subject is a mushroom which grows on dead wood with its gills outwards. As it grows on the underside of the host, their orientation to gravity is normal. This is the resupinate habit, the genus in this case being Resupinatus. Crust fungi have the same habit but without the gills.

The fruiting body is not as flat at its rim as it may seem to be, making getting all in focus quite a challenge.

My conclusion is that the Photar resolves more fine detail at the magnification and aperture combination tested.

The images are shown first at "x5" and second at "x2.5". in each case with the Photar first.












PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They don't have same DOF, so are not both at f11, so it is hard to compare sharpness.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray Parkhurst wrote:
They don't have same DOF, so are not both at f11, so it is hard to compare sharpness.


It's the plane of focus which is difficult to get the same.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

e6filmuser wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
They don't have same DOF, so are not both at f11, so it is hard to compare sharpness.


It's the plane of focus which is difficult to get the same.


There are small differences in plane of focus, but the backgrounds are much more different. Note the first photo critical focus is very close, but the Laowa lens has much sharper background. It must be operating at a smaller aperture. I assume the magnifications are the same, and we're not looking at crops, correct?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray Parkhurst wrote:
e6filmuser wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
They don't have same DOF, so are not both at f11, so it is hard to compare sharpness.


It's the plane of focus which is difficult to get the same.


There are small differences in plane of focus, but the backgrounds are much more different. Note the first photo critical focus is very close, but the Laowa lens has much sharper background. It must be operating at a smaller aperture. I assume the magnifications are the same, and we're not looking at crops, correct?


These are not crops. The FOV of the two lenses were not exactly the same due to having to use solid extension tubes of predetermined lengths for the Photar.

Anyway, having previously found difficulty in confirming the apertures used in such a session, I shot two unlit frames after any change of aperture and retained them without deleting any images. So the apertures are what I say they were. (The assumption is that the unmarked two smallest ones on the Photar are f11 and f16, which I think is the only reasonable one).

I have other lenses which easily allow the aperture ring to be moved while supporting the tip of the lens. Such support is not relevant to these lenses.

Any difference in the detail shown in the background will also be from my trying to get all of the rim of the mushroom in focus and tilting the plane of the sensor in relation to it. I was interested in the fungus and detail in it, not in the background.