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

Tessar 2.8/50 IcarexTM on 5DMkII
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:57 pm    Post subject: Tessar 2.8/50 IcarexTM on 5DMkII Reply with quote
two test shots with the 5D MkII for this old (60s) Carl Zeiss Tessar 2.8/50 lens (West Zeiss) for Icarex TM camera:
Hand-held.

whole resized:


100% crop (note Moire on the roofs):


whole resized:


100% crops:






And this is the lens:



PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila, I have placed the full size images on your server, for your lens gallery use.

Is someone is interested, here's one of the full size images, jpgegged. Link:
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/5DMkII_Tessar50icarextm/5DMarkII_CZTessar2.8-50_Icarex_TM_01.jpg
you will have to click another time on the image to make it show at full size.

Personally speaking I am astonished at the performance of this lens. It was good for me in other photos in the past, but never saw it perform this way.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many thanks!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
orio:
at what aperture these shoots where done?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
urmelchen wrote:
orio:
at what aperture these shoots where done?


f/8
that reduces a bit the central sharpness but improves the edges. Tessars need that, as Tessar corners are not as strong as other lens designs.
Actually there is people who recommends to shoot Tessars at f/11, but I think that f/8 is enough for these relatively modern Tessars.

For showing off the best of lenses I usually photograph at f/5.6, except for some fast portrait lenses that give their best from f/2.8 to f/4


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
impressive results! and if a remember, your 3.5 version is even better


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
impressive results! and if a remember, your 3.5 version is even better


It's different.
This Icarex Tessar is West Germany and looks like the Contax 45mm lens - extremely sharp. While the Contax lens is neutral in colour, this lens has a slight cool colour tone.
The Jena 3.5/50 gives a very different image. Weaker in corners (where it's difficult to get sharp also stopped down), decidedly warmer in colour tone,
with a strange circular bokeh reminiscent of the Helios-40 lenses, and with an impressive 3D rendering.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

How much of this quality reproduction is the effect of the MkII? I suspect the lens would not show up quite as well on a lesser sensor?


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Orio
How much of this quality reproduction is the effect of the MkII? I suspect the lens would not show up quite as well on a lesser sensor?
patrickh


That's an interesting issue.
I think that a good camera is like a good and difficult song. It can make the difference between singers that can really sing, and singers that are only a fashionable phenomenon.
On the other hand however, there is to be said that a good song is always nice to be listened to even if not executed in the best way.
So I guess there is part of truth in both whose who say that a great camera shows the shortcoming of the lenses, and those who say that a great camera makes everything look better.
But ultimately, I think that the first is truer. A great camera shows the difference between the lenses.
Please look at the following image, it is the official landscape promo image of the 5D Mark II (top right image):

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/eos5dm2_sample-e.html

It was taken with a L lens at aperture f/7.1 (!)
Please compare with my Tessar image. In my opinion, Canon's image completely lacks the depth, the clarity, the definition of my image.
It is muddy. it lacks micro-contrast. The distant part looks like the pastry for a cake. Where is the texture? Where the feeling of the rock?

Now am I presumptuous if I say that my 1966 budget standard lens for the Icarex (I underscore _budget_,
because the more expensive standard lens for the Icarex was the Ultron 1.8/50)
completely wipes away the contemporary Canon L zoom 24-105 which has a standard price of over 1000 Euros ?

So yes I think that my images are good because I have good lenses not because of camera only,
and yes I think that well manufactured manual focus lenses, even budget lenses,
can really be much better than the best autofocus L lenses costing over 1000 Euros. Very Happy And that this is not us being maniac: it is simply the truth!

By the way, for this Tessar I paid something that was between 50 and 100 Euros, can not remember exactly how much. Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

I concur with your assessment, but one has to wonder at the company using the output from a zoom lens (no matter how good compared with other zooms) as likely comparison against a prime lens. I have a distinct impression that modern lens manufacture has not only cut corners on mounting (plastic) but has also come to rely more heavily on coatings to provide correction for colour, casting and flare that used to be catered for in glass composition and optical design. The old MF lenses we tend to see on this forum range from extreme budget (Industar 50/3.5) to very expensive (distagons, leica etc), but show not just quality differences (sharpness, accutance?, micro-contrast) but character differences that can more than make up for other shortcomings. I think modern lenses have not come very far and are all merging into a sameness that is equated with perfection in the eye of the manufacturers.

patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Orio
I concur with your assessment, but one has to wonder at the company using the output from a zoom lens (no matter how good compared with other zooms)


yes.
But the point is, if you look at the old lenses catalogues - I mention Contax because that is what I know better, but I think it was the same for all companies back then - you used to have, say, 20-25 primes in the catalogue, and 4-5 zoom lenses.
Look at Canon catalogue today, more than half of the produced lenses are zooms. This because most non-expert people buying cameras wants zooms. So Canon makes zooms, even in absurd ranges, that can not possibly be good lenses, because it is physically impossible that a lens that is, say, 18-200mm, can perform well.
So what happens is that Canon demoes its cameras using these zoom lenses, which remain zoom lenses even if they label them "L".
On top of that, zoom lenses, more than primes, need a huge lot of optical elements, and for this reason, they use a lot of plastic elements instead of glass, in order to keep the weight of these zoom lenses acceptable. And they also use all plastic barrels. And they have to produce many, so they don't do a good quality control.

patrickh wrote:
I think modern lenses have not come very far and are all merging into a sameness that is equated with perfection in the eye of the manufacturers.
patrickh


Absolutely yes. And we have to blame software for that.
As photo retouche programs have become more and more powerful, the companies who produce lenses have come to the colcusion that it's useless to spend money to make perfect lenses, when the software "can fix it all"... so take Canon for instance, they make (with some exceptions, to be fair) mostly dull lenses, lenses that have poor contrast, good resolvance but average or below average contrast, weak colours etc.
Why? Because it's cheaper and faster to produce lenses like that. E.g. they don't care aanymore about light fall in corners, because they make cameras that have corner light compensation schemes for each lens.
They rely on the camera software to adjust the contrast, the colours etc.
That is how the contemporary lens is in Canonland, and I suspect it's more or less the same everywhere: lenses that are without character and render "flat" boring images, that are enhanced by the software.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I moved thread to Oversized due to images big size.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
it seems that you are happy with the Icarex screw mount lenses Laughing

How about the Icarex bajonet lenses, do they have same optics?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Page 1 of 1