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

Test of different 35mm lenses on APS-C sensor
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:33 pm    Post subject: Test of different 35mm lenses on APS-C sensor Reply with quote

I've done another private lens test and selected this time all of my present available 35mm lenses from my collectors inventory. 35mm on APS-C or DX sensor is rather popular as it compares approximately to 50mm on FF in terms of FOV.

A picture of the concerned lenses could be found here: http://forum.mflenses.com/different-35mm-lenses-out-of-my-collection-t71236.html

This time I tried to use them all on my Ricoh GXR-M (DX format) because I also wanted to include the RF lenses and look how they compare to the SLR lenses:

Asahi Super-Takumar F2, Minolta MD W.Rokkor F2.8, Minolta AF F2, Topcon UV Topcor F3.5, Voigtlaender Ultron F1.7, Jupiter 12 F2.8, ISCO Westron F3.5, Nikon Nikkor-S F2.8, MIR-1 (37mm) F2.8, Yashica Yashinon-DX F2.8.

Additionally I've done 2 additional 50mm lenses on FF sensor, namely the Pentacon 50mm/F1.8 and the Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm/F1.4, to see how they compare to 35mm on DX and/or between themselves.

Unfortunately neither the Westron, nor the Nikkor have been able to focus correctly. Most probably because of adapter issues. Bad luck. The only way to include the Westron was at F16. The Nikkor was not usable with the M42 adapter, neither on the Ricoh nor on the Sony A850 (which I used for the FF pictures). Obviously the adapter is faulty.

As usual my samples are captured RAW, WB set to manual to avoid variations caused by any automatically applied logic and no post processing at all, only re-sized for presentation or 100% view for the crops.

To avoid differences based on changing wind and/or light conditions I preferred to do it with my little studio set for indoor photography. The light was rather intense on purpose to reach a rather contrasty environment which is harder for the lenses to compensate or is more likely to show some weakness of the lenses.

Setup is looking like this including 3 lights as shown:



I am showing always the whole picture at F5.6 (only exception is the Westron as mentioned before) and in total 4 crops at 100%; the first 3 of them at F5.6 and always the last picture per lens (the red car) also at widest aperture (e.g. 1.4 for the 50/1.4).

1. The RF lenses 35mm:

1/1. Voigtlaender Ultron F1.7 (M39/LTM):







1/2. Jupiter 12 F2.8 from Lytkarino Optical Glass Factory, Russia (M39/LTM):







1/3. ISCO Goettingen Westron F3.5 (at F16 without max. aperture) (M39/Paxette):






2. The SLR lenses 35mm:

2/1. Asahi Super Takumar F2 (M42):







2/2. Minolta W.Rokkor MD 2.8 (Minolta SR/MD):







2/3. Minolta AF F2 (Minolta AF):







2/4. MIR-1 37mm/F2.8 made by ZOMZ, Russia (M39/Zenit):







2/5. Topcon UV Topcor F3.5 (UV mount):







2/6. Yashica Yashinon-DX F2.8 (M42):







3. The 50mm SLR lenses on FF-sensor:

3/1. Pentacon auto F1.8 "multi coating" by Meyer Goerlitz/GDR (M42):







3/2. Asahi Super-Takumar F1.4 (M42):







So, that's it for now. Not to sure if I should buy another adapter for the Nikkor. It's a very cheap lens and maybe the adapter is more expensive than the lens.

The pictures speak for themselves, I think.

Should anybody want to see any other aperture and/or picture size, this may be possible. Eventually on Google Plus or so (if too big for the forum).

Any comments are highly appreciated. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jupiter wins Laughing

More seiously considering the wider aperture I'd say Voigtlander and Minolta /2 are the best performers


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick1779 wrote:
Jupiter wins Laughing

More seiously considering the wider aperture I'd say Voigtlander and Minolta /2 are the best performers


That's also my impression. My personal winner is Voigtlaender. Although I am rather positively surprised by the Russian lenses. But I think the Jupiter 12 is not usable on most of the digital cameras because of it's deep intrusion into the camera body when mounted. Neither on my NEX nor on my Lumix MFT it is compatible. On the Ricoh more or less any RF lens is working without troubles. That's why I have it. Wink
The GDR lens (Meyer/Pentacon 50mm) is crap as expected and the worst lens at all. Only for "bokeh lovers" usable. Nothing for "normal" photography on paper for pictures larger than 10x15cm (typical holiday pictures).


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the testing methodology and execution,

for comparing lenses.


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Rick1779 wrote:
Jupiter wins Laughing

More seiously considering the wider aperture I'd say Voigtlander and Minolta /2 are the best performers


That's also my impression. My personal winner is Voigtlaender. Although I am rather positively surprised by the Russian lenses. But I think the Jupiter 12 is not usable on most of the digital cameras because of it's deep intrusion into the camera body when mounted. Neither on my NEX nor on my Lumix MFT it is compatible. On the Ricoh more or less any RF lens is working without troubles. That's why I have it. Wink
The GDR lens (Meyer/Pentacon 50mm) is crap as expected and the worst lens at all. Only for "bokeh lovers" usable. Nothing for "normal" photography on paper for pictures larger than 10x15cm (typical holiday pictures).


the jupiter-12 suits well on A7, i use it quite often my silver version Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some strange colors on the Monolta MD hair crop. First I thought it was CA fringing but on closer inspection it shows too many different colors. There is magenta, blue, a bit of green, some red. Besides, if it was CA fringing, it'd shown on the car wheels.
Could that be moire?


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

notko wrote:
Some strange colors on the Monolta MD hair crop. First I thought it was CA fringing but on closer inspection it shows too many different colors. There is magenta, blue, a bit of green, some red. Besides, if it was CA fringing, it'd shown on the car wheels.
Could that be moire?


Well, I don't have an explanation either. But the most likely failure is "moire" I would say. There is no fringing.
It's also quite interesting to see how different those lenses cope with the very high contrast on the 2nd crop. For pixel peepers it may also be interesting to note that the Minolta F2 lens is the only one which shows at F2 slightly signs of purple fringing (4th crop).
I don't bother to much on the different performance fully open as there is no lens without any shortage. But at least at F5.6 should a lens perform at it's best. Therefore those crops say much more about their qualities (in my opinion). However, I don't think that this little failure of the Minolta MD lens would be visible on a final picture up to 60x40cms. Therefore I do consider this lens still to be very good and recommendable.
Interesting is also that I've included also the Super-Macro-Takumar 50mm/F4 in the test and found out that it's almost identical at F5.6 in comparison to the published 50mm/F1.4 lens. Somehow I was expecting the macro lens to be better, but it's not.
Also the "cheap" UV-Topcor was rather a positive surprise at F5.6.


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
I like the testing methodology and execution,

for comparing lenses.


I am totally with you. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick1779 wrote:

the jupiter-12 suits well on A7, i use it quite often my silver version Wink


Good to hear. Nevertheless I will stay with my A850 until further. Wink
Actually it's my best "Minolta" and especially for my rather good assorted set of Minolta AF lenses my preferred camera and all my Takumars fit also very nicely on this "machine".
To play around with different other lenses I still love my Ricoh as it was especially designed for that. Unfortunately Ricoh gave up their own camera development in favor of Pentax since they bought Pentax some years ago. I was always hoping that they will come up with a FF "GXR-M". That would have been the logical consequence..... Bad luck.
So until further if I want to see all my Voigtlaender and Leica lenses on FF I have to stick with film. The A7x is therefore only nice to have and not really necessary for me. At least for the time being. Maybe the A9 or A8.5? Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:43 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bernhardas wrote:
That was a lot of work. Thanks for sharing.


Sometimes I have to do something in order to avoid illness like "bore-out"-syndrome. If it makes additionally sense at the end of the day it's even better. I am already Retiree. Wink
I am happy to share my findings here and there is more to come....


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Jupiter is good..and so is the Minolta 35/2.8 MF....there is a huge greenish colour cast with the pentacon, it seems?
Horrible, how bad the Yashica is...the picture simply looks overexposed...the Yashica ML lenses are so much better.
Like other reviews onto the web wrote, the Minolta is able to deliver professional results.. i am happy with that lens purchase.
For my taste, the Minolta MF 35/2.8 MD/MC here wins.

Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing this 1:1 comparsion between the different lenses.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

doomed-forever wrote:
The Jupiter is good..and so is the Minolta 35/2.8 MF....there is a huge greenish colour cast with the pentacon, it seems?
Horrible, how bad the Yashica is...the picture simply looks overexposed...the Yashica ML lenses are so much better.
Like other reviews onto the web wrote, the Minolta is able to deliver professional results.. i am happy with that lens purchase.
For my taste, the Minolta MF 35/2.8 MD/MC here wins.

Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing this 1:1 comparsion between the different lenses.


Well, the slightly "greener" look is also caused by the different camera for the FF views, where I simply set the WB to 5500 Kelvin. Therefore, don't compare the color between 35mm and 50mm lenses. The MF Minolta is very good and according to several other tests it's better than the F1.8 version.
And don't forget: There was no post processing!

Later this year I am planning a really huge test of 50mm lenses (I have many Wink). That will also include the Yashica ML lens, besides many others. But I do not have any Canon lens! So, if somebody want's to see a Canon in comparison, he or she must provide the lens. Same is true for Olympus until further, but that may change.....


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I've forgotten to mention is that the rather soft performance in the fully open crop of the CV 35mm may also be caused by slightly out of focus area of the red car. I'll recheck that later. The DOF at F1.7 is very shallow and the red car was not in the same line like the hair but approx. 10 cms behind.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
doomed-forever wrote:
The Jupiter is good..and so is the Minolta 35/2.8 MF....there is a huge greenish colour cast with the pentacon, it seems?
Horrible, how bad the Yashica is...the picture simply looks overexposed...the Yashica ML lenses are so much better.
Like other reviews onto the web wrote, the Minolta is able to deliver professional results.. i am happy with that lens purchase.
For my taste, the Minolta MF 35/2.8 MD/MC here wins.

Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing this 1:1 comparsion between the different lenses.


Well, the slightly "greener" look is also caused by the different camera for the FF views, where I simply set the WB to 5500 Kelvin. Therefore, don't compare the color between 35mm and 50mm lenses. The MF Minolta is very good and according to several other tests it's better than the F1.8 version.
And don't forget: There was no post processing!

Later this year I am planning a really huge test of 50mm lenses (I have many Wink). That will also include the Yashica ML lens, besides many others. But I do not have any Canon lens! So, if somebody want's to see a Canon in comparison, he or she must provide the lens. Same is true for Olympus until further, but that may change.....


Greetings, thanks for your fast, nice reply. I do know that the 35/2.8 is better than the 35/1.8, much smaller, much cheaper...therefore i said to myself, i don't need the F1.8 aperture, and it's not that big & bulky, also way cheaper, too. At F4, you can't really tell the difference between the 35/2.8 MD and the 35/1.8 MD Rokkor...your manual WB preset explains that color cast difference...thanks.

Like the Fredmiranda Comparsion between the Yashica ML 50/1.7 and the matching Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 Counterpart, there is hardly any Image difference, besides that the Yashica renders the Colors a bit cooler, and the Zeiss is neglible sharper....and, surprisingly, the Zeiss is made most out of Plastic, whileas the Yashica is made out of metal - it's the cheapest Contax Zeiss, the 50/1.4, which i do own also as MMJ Version, does have a metal Body, not plastic like the 50/1.7, but besides this, the Zeiss is also a very good lens, check out the SLRGear Review - and the Yashica ML 50/1.7 is a bargain, which could often being found for about 20-50 EUR depending onto the condition...


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

doomed-forever wrote:

Like the Fredmiranda Comparsion between the Yashica ML 50/1.7 and the matching Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 Counterpart, there is hardly any Image difference, besides that the Yashica renders the Colors a bit cooler, and the Zeiss is neglible sharper....and, surprisingly, the Zeiss is made most out of Plastic, whileas the Yashica is made out of metal - it's the cheapest Contax Zeiss, the 50/1.4, which i do own also as MMJ Version, does have a metal Body, not plastic like the 50/1.7, but besides this, the Zeiss is also a very good lens, check out the SLRGear Review - and the Yashica ML 50/1.7 is a bargain, which could often being found for about 20-50 EUR depending onto the condition...


A famous German test magazine compared the Yashica and the Zeiss lenses (50mm/F1.7) in 1985 and they proved that the Yashica is measurable the better lens at F5.6 also in terms of sharpness. That's the reason why I have the Yashica and not the Zeiss version. Wink


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
doomed-forever wrote:

Like the Fredmiranda Comparsion between the Yashica ML 50/1.7 and the matching Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 Counterpart, there is hardly any Image difference, besides that the Yashica renders the Colors a bit cooler, and the Zeiss is neglible sharper....and, surprisingly, the Zeiss is made most out of Plastic, whileas the Yashica is made out of metal - it's the cheapest Contax Zeiss, the 50/1.4, which i do own also as MMJ Version, does have a metal Body, not plastic like the 50/1.7, but besides this, the Zeiss is also a very good lens, check out the SLRGear Review - and the Yashica ML 50/1.7 is a bargain, which could often being found for about 20-50 EUR depending onto the condition...


A famous German test magazine compared the Yashica and the Zeiss lenses (50mm/F1.7) in 1985 and they proved that the Yashica is measurable the better lens at F5.6 also in terms of sharpness. That's the reason why I have the Yashica and not the Zeiss version. Wink


Well, that looks only possible for my eyes, if it was the in-famous "ColorFoto" german magazine - that gutter press magazine, which tested the D7000 Nikon worse than the D90 (i do own both - lol) and also tested DSLR bodies only for their JPEG Output, not the RAW Sensor Data....years ago....interesting, they've often come to different "Reviews" than the rest of the net with their Tests...think about sponsored ad campaigns....well, if you see reviews onto the net about the Yashi 50/1.7 ML is close, but the Zeiss is better. Cool The Yashica is perhaps 85-90% of the older 50/1.7 AE Version Contax Zeiss, not the newer MM.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree with Rick and Thomas as to the best performer. To me, the evaluation was easy. The red car sits in a corner, and it's the only shot taken at f/5.6 and wide open. So this was the subject that was being subjected to the most harsh scrutiny by position as well as by aperture settings. So those two images of the red car were the ones I evaluated from each lens. And they speak volumes. The clear winner is the Minolta MD Rokkor 2.8 -- 35mm focal length, right? The second best, IMO, was the Pentax Super Tak 50/1.4. The Super Tak held up very well, although not quite as well as the Minolta.

I was surprised by two of the lenses. The Voigtlander did not hold up nearly as well wide open as I thought it would, it being an aspherical design and all. And the Yashica DX was also rather poor in corner performance wide open. I have a DX 50mm f/1.7 and it is a razor sharp optic, so I was expecting better out of this lens.

A very interesting comparison, Thomas. Thanks for all the trouble you went to. I love data like this.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the Minolta MD 35/2.8 (5-element version) I have is incredibly sharp anywhere and at any aperture, although it is more impressive on FF.
For APS-C I preferred the Canon 35/2 LTM.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, it's very difficult I have to admit. But I've checked all crops and compared them. The MF Minolta is somehow strange when you look at the hair crops. On the other hand, as already mentioned, the wide open shot of the CV lens could eventually be a little bit out of focus. I have to double check this performance. I found the red car some 10 cms behind the focal point. A real and fair basis is therefore the direct comparison at same aperture, in this case at F5.6.
However, it's rather extreme pixel peeping. I would finally say that there are very good performers and not so good performers and bad performers (like Yashica and Pentacon). The overview picture gives you a good idea how the difference really turns out in a final picture and how important the ability is to cope with this rather extreme contrast of the setting.
Another story is that there is no perfect lens wide open. That was clear even before.
And finally there is a different interpretation of the seen pictures of different individuals based on their different preferences.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

doomed-forever wrote:

Well, that looks only possible for my eyes, if it was the in-famous "ColorFoto" german magazine - that gutter press magazine, which tested the D7000 Nikon worse than the D90 (i do own both - lol) and also tested DSLR bodies only for their JPEG Output, not the RAW Sensor Data....years ago....interesting, they've often come to different "Reviews" than the rest of the net with their Tests...think about sponsored ad campaigns....well, if you see reviews onto the net about the Yashi 50/1.7 ML is close, but the Zeiss is better. Cool The Yashica is perhaps 85-90% of the older 50/1.7 AE Version Contax Zeiss, not the newer MM.


Actually it was Color-Foto. However, this test was done by a technical laboratory on behalf of instruments and not by human guess and judging. So I have no doubt that the result is correct. Especially as it was done 1985 and not nowadays. It was also rather spectacular, that even the "holy" German Leica Summicron was beaten by the Yashica ML. But we are talking about measured results and not the final pictures. That is the difference. And bear in mind that at this time high resolution film was used and not rather low resolution digital sensors like today.
The other story is that most of the magazines presently judge the cameras based on default settings in the camera which may lead to very strange results, as simply the default setting is not the best. Dpreview is very famous on that. But that is anyway a totally different story as the result, i.e. the final picture which is based more on the sensor than the used lens (if the lens is not bad as such), is very differently interpreted by different individuals based on their subjective and personal preferences.
You can compare that with the never ending story on HiFi equipment and all the "Voodoo" miracles around that. That is more a matter of psychology than of technics. Here I would see digital photography as "MP3" compared to film photography based on analog technics ("high resolution").
At least that is the way I see the whole issue.
If we really want to talk about quality more seriously, then forget all of these "toy cameras" and discuss about real pictures based on 120/220 high definition film (e.g. Fujifilm Velvia 50 Professional). That is still another league or the "premium class".


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I didn't take into account the fact that some items were located at different distances from the camera. However, the red car was in focus at f/5.6 with both optics I liked -- and maintained good focus when shot wide open, so that was really all I was going by.

Good point about the fact that we're talking a digital camera here. Back in the days of film it was true that ultimately a camera was just a light-tight box that you hung a lens to the front of. But not anymore, not by a long shot. Digital cameras do a major amount of processing just as part of creating the image. I know, for example, that with my APS-C EOS DSLR, the default sharpness and contrast settings were 3 out of a possible of 7. And 3 was soft in terms of both sharpness and contrast. As a result, I almost always bumped up the sharpness and contrast to where they should have been in Canon's DPP raw conversion utility. Any more and it added noise and artifacts. Canon's DPP does have a good noise correction filter, but I'd rather not be putting noise into an image to begin with.

With my Sony NEX 7 it's different -- there are no defaults internal to the NEX 7. But Sony's raw conversion utility has both a sharpness and a contrast filter as well. I've used it on occasion, but honestly I think that the processing software I prefer does a better job with both than the Sony utility does. The Sony utility adds quite a bit of noise, I find, and its noise correction filter doesn't do a very good job of getting rid of it.

So what do you believe? I guess that ulltimately you have to go with the one that you personally like the best. And to heck with the rest. Cool


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:

So what do you believe? I guess that ulltimately you have to go with the one that you personally like the best. And to heck with the rest. Cool


I see it exactly like you.

Additionally the desired picture presentation plays also a very important role. If you want to produce mainly classical "holiday pictures" like 10x15cms it is relatively unimportant which lens or camera you use as long as the color setting suits your taste.
If you want to produce pictures up to 40x60cms the quality of the lens comes into the game and if you want to go even further and still want to achieve an excellent quality, then forget the digital photography on smaller sensors (up to 24x36mm).
For presentation on monitors, TV or with beamers a 6MP camera is fair enough or already over-sophisticated.
That's my personal point of view.
If I really want to produce Posters I still prefer high resolution film. On the other hand I try to use (for me) the best equipment for "every day"-photography to produce the maximum picture, if (at all) the famous one and only picture of my life is suddenly showing up in front of my lens. Wink

I am sure, some other or even most people will see that differently.

A quick test:



What kind of camera/lens combination and size of sensor was the source of this picture?
I have done this with a digital camera and the presented size would equal a print of approximately 30x20 cms (A4).

OK, here is the answer: http://goo.gl/qtuVdL
I am rather sure that everybody was wrong and did expect something totally different.


Last edited by tb_a on Sat May 23, 2015 11:37 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the Takumar 50 / 4 Macro excels at what it's designed for - macro. I prefer the 1.8 and 2 for 'general photography'. Actually, I adore my old Auto Takumar 55 / 1.8.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
doomed-forever wrote:

Well, that looks only possible for my eyes, if it was the in-famous "ColorFoto" german magazine - that gutter press magazine, which tested the D7000 Nikon worse than the D90 (i do own both - lol) and also tested DSLR bodies only for their JPEG Output, not the RAW Sensor Data....years ago....interesting, they've often come to different "Reviews" than the rest of the net with their Tests...think about sponsored ad campaigns....well, if you see reviews onto the net about the Yashi 50/1.7 ML is close, but the Zeiss is better. Cool The Yashica is perhaps 85-90% of the older 50/1.7 AE Version Contax Zeiss, not the newer MM.


Actually it was Color-Foto. However, this test was done by a technical laboratory on behalf of instruments and not by human guess and judging. So I have no doubt that the result is correct. Especially as it was done 1985 and not nowadays. It was also rather spectacular, that even the "holy" German Leica Summicron was beaten by the Yashica ML. But we are talking about measured results and not the final pictures. That is the difference. And bear in mind that at this time high resolution film was used and not rather low resolution digital sensors like today.
The other story is that most of the magazines presently judge the cameras based on default settings in the camera which may lead to very strange results, as simply the default setting is not the best. Dpreview is very famous on that. But that is anyway a totally different story as the result, i.e. the final picture which is based more on the sensor than the used lens (if the lens is not bad as such), is very differently interpreted by different individuals based on their subjective and personal preferences.
You can compare that with the never ending story on HiFi equipment and all the "Voodoo" miracles around that. That is more a matter of psychology than of technics. Here I would see digital photography as "MP3" compared to film photography based on analog technics ("high resolution").
At least that is the way I see the whole issue.
If we really want to talk about quality more seriously, then forget all of these "toy cameras" and discuss about real pictures based on 120/220 high definition film (e.g. Fujifilm Velvia 50 Professional). That is still another league or the "premium class".


Well, i was sitting since 9 am today morning onto my PC, could barely see clearly now, and will answer you tomorrow. The fact for me is, ColorFoto does have a very negative taste into my eyes & ears, and i do trust since 2000 only Sites like DPR, dpreview, and since some
years also especially PhotoZone, Lens Rentals, SLRGear...and not much more around..because you know the drill...too many are just ad campaigns for product xy.

About HiFi - i was a HiFi enthusiast since the late 80's, and have read the german magazines Audio, Stereo, Stereoplay & HiFi Vision all the time, and bought all of them each issue every month...it just stopped for myself somewhere when it technically became very "esoteric", i remember it was into the magazine STEREO, when some journalist named Mathias Bode as far as i remember, wrote into a HighEnd Record Player review, that setup and arm sounds especially better, if you'd put some very specific kind of paper triangles onto the arm....my father is a (now retired) physician you must know, and he is/was also doing very good into electronical things, and also measurement instrumentation, i am over 40 now, and for example can do soldering platines perfectly since i was 12....so there is some technical background there from both of us, apart i am not a physician, and never was....but i've built my own HiFi Class A Amplifier when i was between 12 to 16....so...and then now comes this Matthias Bode Journalist, and for real wrote this story about these paper triangles
into that otherwise good Stereo Magazine....from that day on, i stopped buying all these HiFi Magazines, trusted no one into that way anymore - just my own ears, which are still quite well for my age...and never bought HiFi equipment based on magazine Tests...so much for that topic. Now i am mostly listening to lossless Audio files via flac on my OpAmp modded Xonar Essence STX Soundcard, together with the Sennheiser HD 650, and for just Movies & easy listening i do use a much simpler, way cheap Headphone.
My Lenses: MF prime and zoom lenses from contax zeiss, yashica ml series, minolta md&mc rokkors, carl zeiss jena, sigma, and a few others... about film: or Agfa Scala 200x b/w film - very good quality....or Kodak T-Max 100, Tri-X 400. ...somewhere in a box is a EOS 10 (not D) hiding and waiting for a film roll being to be insert after a huge long time... Wink

Good n8