Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Modern Zuiko 1.8/75mm v classic Biotar 1.5/75mm
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oreste wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Just saying, I think they made the Biotar look less good than it is. Paranoia is not one of my failings.


I doubt that very much. People have some romantic notion that pre-war lenses were good. They were adequate, but no more. The latest lenses from the major manufacturers are light-years ahead of those old lenses. The new 50mm Summicron APO-ASPH is astounding (and very expensive, even for a Leica lens).

You can read about it here:

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html


Actual lens is post-war biotar 1951 slim version , advanced a lot on pre-war Biotar in sharpness , yes before war they could make fantastic lenses.

Made in 1941
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/leica_military_sonnar_18cm/

Biotar 1951 post war same lens than in test available light Nikon D50

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/carl_zeiss_jena_biotar/biotar_75mm_f1_5/carl_zeiss_jena_biotar_75mm_f1_5_exa_006.jpg.html

pre war again

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/meyer/hugo-meyer-primoplan-8cm/

1937 -40

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/filmcamera/german/Voigtlander/voigtlander-superb/

1938
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/filmcamera/german/Voigtlander/BessaRF/


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oreste wrote:
People have some romantic notion that pre-war lenses were good. They were adequate, but no more, and the fastest lenses were actually not that good.


Wrong. Pre-war lenses can be very good. 1930's Sonnar 1.5/50 wasn't surpassed until the 1961 Summilux. Pre-war Leitz might be adequate but no more, but the same can't be said of Zeiss or some other makers. The Contax lenses were far ahead of the Leica lenses until the Summicron came along in 1956.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
People have some romantic notion that pre-war lenses were good. They were adequate, but no more, and the fastest lenses were actually not that good.


Wrong. Pre-war lenses can be very good. 1930's Sonnar 1.5/50 wasn't surpassed until the 1961 Summilux. Pre-war Leitz might be adequate but no more, but the same can't be said of Zeiss or some other makers. The Contax lenses were far ahead of the Leica lenses until the Summicron came along in 1956.


There were leaps here and there, and interruptions due to the war, but what I am saying is that generally today's lenses are vastly superior. Pre-war lenses were uncoated and low in contrast, and if you watch films from the 20s and 30s, before coatings were introduced, you can see this, and there is severe flare at times. Many 1930s films are horribly flat, not only because of the lenses used, but because early sound required a low-gradient negative to keep noise and distortion down.


Last edited by Oreste on Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:08 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't turn any of those 2 nice lenses if someone decides to make me a present Wink
But anyways if i get both the Biotar will most probably sell and will keep the Zuiko.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/leica_military_sonnar_18cm/


There is an error in caption in this gallery, it says Leica instead of Carl Zeiss.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:
Attila wrote:

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/leica_military_sonnar_18cm/


There is an error in caption in this gallery, it says Leica instead of Carl Zeiss.


Yes, unclear I will fix it.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, of course there have been many advancements, and the biotar copy might have deteriorated with time due to improper storage, handling etc...

Still, each lens has its purpose... I think that with all those imperfections, the old biotar would still produce more pleasing portraits, but the zuiko would be a better "all around" lens.

And there is absolutely nothing "wring" or "disgraceful" with that!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Misha_M wrote:
Well, of course there have been many advancements, and the biotar copy might have deteriorated with time due to improper storage, handling etc...

Still, each lens has its purpose... I think that with all those imperfections, the old biotar would still produce more pleasing portraits, but the zuiko would be a better "all around" lens.

And there is absolutely nothing "wring" or "disgraceful" with that!


We must not let nostalgia cloud our judgement. Old lenses never die, they just fade away.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After the past 73 years of amazing technological advancement, wouldn't you expect the new lens to outperform? I would have to wonder about Olympus if it didn't. Sharpness comparison at wide open is as expected, but f/5.6 cancels out much of the 73 years. Bokeh goes to Zuiko for smoothness, but I find Biotar more interesting. Making a choice would be difficult - I'd be inclined to say BOTH - why settle? But I too am getting old and am sympathetic, so lean toward the Biotar. When given a choice between my wife's late model Hyundai with comforts or my 1956 Austin-Healey, I'll always take the Healey (unless it's raining).


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its easy to believe the difference in corner resolution at f/1.5
Consider though that the corner on a 4/3 sensor is rather close to the center on full frame, so for the Biotar the area of sharp imaging wide open is apparently very, very small.

Also consider that the the 4/3 sensor is very dense and will find problems at the center that could be missed with less dense sensors.
A Canon 5DII, or nearly any APS-C DSLR or mirrorless would not be as demanding.

The Canon 5D II only has 24K/mm^2 pixels
The OM-D has 71K/mm^2

If you want to pixel peep, it seems to me you will find many more lens problems if you shoot with a 4/3 like the OM-D
Or, alternately, if you are going to use these 4/3 bodies, you need better lenses.