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

Testing/comparing legacy lenses - how?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:07 pm    Post subject: Testing/comparing legacy lenses - how? Reply with quote

Just curious to find out how you guys test your lenses to see how they perform. The reason I ask is I just got a Minolta MD 50mm F2 and went out for a shoot with my A7R2 and on reviewing the pics I was a little underwhelmed. I did the same with a Yashica Yahinon DS 50mm F1.9 another day and was quite impressed with the days shoot.

Yet today I went and compared both lenses by shooting my neighbours TV ariel and the Minolta won by a mile! Wide open both exhibited quite bad purple fringing (Minolta was slightly better). By F5.6 pf had virtually gone on the Minolta. At F8 no pf to be seen on the Minolta but the Yashica still showed some signs. The Minolta appears to be in line with a review I read in that it improves quite rapidly as you stop down and is essentially aberation free and sharp from corner to corner at F8. That is good because I wanted it for landscapes.

So I'm thinking before jumping to conclusions in future I should have a rough idea on what and how to test the lens. Test at various distances, bokeh test, flare test, sharpness, distortion, c.a and purple fringing, contrast, with hood/without hood etc.

I nearly put the Minolta back on Ebay and was going to purchase a 2nd copy to see if it was copy variation.

Another question. If a 42MB sensor (as in A7R2) outresolves a lens does that make the lens underperform or does that just mean you are not getting the max from the sensor? I'm guessing the latter judging by the Sony/Zeiss 55/f1.8 being extremely sharp..


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't worry, even the 5DsR don't out-resolves many good 50mm.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interesting topic for me too. I've previously wondered, whether A7R II/III can begin forcing some lens into more closed-down apertures.
http://forum.mflenses.com/my-new-a7rii-t78240.html#1512870

Unfortunately very few people on Flickr simultaneously:
1. Have A7R II/III
2. Love to shoot with their stash of MF lenses
3. Allow you to download full-size original JPEG.

I'm most frustrated by #3: there seems to be an epidemic among the owners of very high resolution sensors to resize their pictures down to the 1920px or less on the longest side.

I get why those who sell prints do so, but for everyone else: why even bother with paying for 42Mp sensor if you downscale to less than 2Mp?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
Don't worry, even the 5DsR don't out-resolves many good 50mm.

Have you tried Helios 44-M-whatever 58mm F2?

I think that one might find itself in trouble with 42Mp sensor.
Especially in outer field sharpness.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I test a lens to see how it performs, I take it out and I shoot interesting things that I like. I kind of just feel if I like the results better than from another lens, it doesn't have to be more scientific than that. At least not for me Wink

Most people here cares about drawing, feel and character of a lens rather than pixel peeping and most lenses are sharp enough IMHO.
CA, vignetting and other flaws can easily be adjusted in post.

If a 42mp sensor outperform a classic lens? There are so many variables when it comes to adapting old lenses to digital sensors like filter thickness, construction and technology. Remember, they weren't intended to be placed on a digital body when they where designed and calculated, and they have no software correction support from the camera as many other modern lenses with flaws have. Talking about sharpness though, my classic lenses perform better when is comes to sharpness on my A7R III that I use on work than they do on my A7 II that I own privately. More resolution and no AA filter does the trick, but this doesn't mean that the outcome on the A7 IIs sensor is more than good enough in most cases, at least for me Smile

Cheers
Lars


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
When I test a lens to see how it performs, I take it out and I shoot interesting things that I like. I kind of just feel if I like the results better than from another lens, it doesn't have to be more scientific than that. At least not for me Wink
...
Cheers
Lars


Exactly what I would have said and done!! Wink Wink Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Testing/comparing legacy lenses - how? Reply with quote

norman j shearer wrote:
Just curious to find out how you guys test your lenses to see how they perform.

< . . . >

So I'm thinking before jumping to conclusions in future I should have a rough idea on what and how to test the lens. Test at various distances, bokeh test, flare test, sharpness, distortion, c.a and purple fringing, contrast, with hood/without hood etc.


I think that all of your above suggestions are good ideas. You mention "various distances" but I would be sure to include macro or close-ups to your tests as well. Conducting such tests as you've indicated will give you a good idea of each lens's capabilities.

I'm not so well organized when I test lenses. I have a couple of set subjects I use to test sharpness and resolution of long lenses, and I've conducted informal sets of tests on other lenses which have revealed valuable data, but nothing really organized.

I agree with Lars wrt 24.3mp sensors. I don't have an A7 (or II), but I have a NEX 7 with a 24.3mp sensor, and I find that it gives me plenty of headroom in almost all instances. A 36 or 42 mp sensor would give me more room than I'd know what to do with . . . although I suspect I'd probably find a use for it. Maybe like resolving the grain in Velvia 50 slides when I'm duplicating them.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Most people here cares about drawing, feel and character of a lens rather than pixel peeping and most lenses are sharp enough IMHO.
CA, vignetting and other flaws can easily be adjusted in post.


Thank you Lars, that is exactly how I feel. If you want to 'Pixel Peep' then your kit lens is probably the best to use. Vintage lenses often have minor imperfections. Some of these imperfections give 'character' and then some are just crap. The best way to test a vintage lens is in real life shooting. If you like it, use it. If not, shelve it. Most of my vintage collection is Nikon and I shoot them on the Df and sometimes D800/D850. I think the older lenses give a feel and warmth that I cannot duplicate in post.

I also use the latest, greatest modern lenses especially telephoto when shooting wildlife and air shows, etc.
Pete


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@aidaho
No. I don't have any Helios-44M family now.

My friend gives full-size JPEG converted from RAW in his flickr with A7R II, in case someone need to check them.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xeoc/albums

@others
Keep in mind that 42mp may look much more than 24mp in value but it is not try true, it is just a 32% increase of pixels at each side. The benefit of higher MP, apart from more freedom in cropping, is to get sharper photos when downsized.

Here is an example using the photo in Studio shot comparison tool by dpreview shot with same lens and same setting. I used Capture One to resize the 42mp RAW from A7RIII to 6000px JEPG and compare with the 6000px JEPG of A7III converted by Capture One. The JPEG is then view on Adobe lightroom at 1:1 and 2:1.

#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use the Churchyard for my test shots, it's right behind our house and gets sun all day long, and it's nice and peaceful. The gravestones are solid, have well defined edges and carved writing and don't change. On the horizon, in the gap in the trees on the left are some power line poles, they're just over a mile away so great for infinity testing. The poles and power lines really show up an CA and poor infinity sharpness. I take a set of pictures at different apertures, usually three sets - infinity and focused on a closer headstone and the last on a headstone further away.

It's real world testing, I think it tells me all I need to know about the lens. And the more I do it the more I get a feel for comparing similar lenses.

Then on the way back to our house I shoot a set of pictures of the TV antenna, that really shows up the CA.

Typical shot, Soligor 28 / 2.8 @ f8 focused on the Thomas Barnes Wilson headstone.


And a crop, you can see the CA on the horizon trees and power line poles, sharpness on the focus point, the bokeh on the close headstone and beyond the focus point


Last edited by Lloydy on Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Don't worry, even the 5DsR don't out-resolves many good 50mm.

Have you tried Helios 44-M-whatever 58mm F2?

I think that one might find itself in trouble with 42Mp sensor.
Especially in outer field sharpness.


I have. First shoot with it I discovered my 44-M-4 could not reach infinity focus! That shoot was a screw-up anyway because I forget to switch from jpeg standard to RAW. Centre performance was good and bokeh interesting but corners had a zoomed-in look. Another shoot with a different copy 44-M-4 and camera set to raw and pics were good allround but corners a little soft. I don't think I stopped down further than F5.6 though. I have another 3 or 4 Helios I've yet to test. I don't think I'd grab a Helios for landscape work..


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I use the Churchyard for my test shots, it's right behind our house and gets sun all day long, and it's nice and peaceful. The gravestones are solid, have well defined edges and carved writing and don't change. On the horizon, in the gap in the trees on the left are some power line poles, they're just over a mile away so great for infinity testing. The poles and power lines really show up an CA and poor infinity sharpness. I take a set of pictures at different apertures, usually three sets - infinity and focused on a closer headstone and the last on a headstone further away.

It's real world testing, I think it tells me all I need to know about the lens. And the more I do it the more I get a feel for comparing similar lenses.

Then on the way back to our house I shoot a set of pictures of the TV antenna, that really shows up the CA.



A churchyard is a good idea, always plenty of them about!

I took the Minolta out today for a quick spin. Shooting at F8 it does seem a fine lens. The camera is a recent purchase so my pp skills need some adjusting so maybe I overdid the pics on my first shoot and the light was a bit strong and washing out the colors. Today was cloudy.




PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for info, norman.

norman j shearer wrote:
I don't think I'd grab a Helios for landscape work..

That's what I thought.

I bet it would still be plenty useful even on A7R II/III, yet it did began to fall apart, as expected.
Lenses do eventually go obsolete. Not overnight, but rather slowly, day by day.

42Mp sensor is like another Monday.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
When I test a lens to see how it performs, I take it out and I shoot interesting things that I like. I kind of just feel if I like the results better than from another lens, it doesn't have to be more scientific than that. At least not for me Wink
...
Cheers
Lars


Exactly what I would have said and done!! Wink Wink Wink


+1

Then we move to trying lens under difficult situations, such as wide open, with Sun in frame, in poor and difficult light (high contrast, wide dynamic range, etc.), sometimes comparing results with other lenses.

From there experiences over long periods of use.

But before all that we've likely looked at results others get.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
When I test a lens to see how it performs, I take it out and I shoot interesting things that I like. I kind of just feel if I like the results better than from another lens, it doesn't have to be more scientific than that. At least not for me Wink
...
Cheers
Lars


Exactly what I would have said and done!! Wink Wink Wink


This is very similar to my thinking. For my purposes, most interchangeable lenses manufactured in the last 50 years or so are amply sharp enough for my needs. What affects me more is which way does the focus ring turn to achieve infinity, similarly with the aperture ring ... how easy is it to close down without taking my eye from the viewfinder. Factors like these are more likely to influence my success or failure with any one lens - YMMV Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found another A7R II shooter, who allows downloading originals
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilya_art/albums/72157658305573851/

Not all of the shots are made on MF lenses, but you can dig through.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Test the lens in the way you want to use it. You can made the best out of the lens if you understand its weakness and strength.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
Test the lens in the way you want to use it. You can made the best out of the lens if you understand its weakness and strength.

Exactly.
Getting to know your lens is very important as Calvin says.
Too many people don't bother to find out how the lens performs for them, and when it will perform best and when badly.
Use it to its strengths and you should not be disappointed.
If you are, then the lens is not for you - so pass it along or sell it.
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Talking about sharpness though, my classic lenses perform better when is comes to sharpness on my A7R III that I use on work than they do on my A7 II that I own privately. More resolution and no AA filter does the trick, but this doesn't mean that the outcome on the A7 IIs sensor is more than good enough in most cases, at least for me.


That's also my impression if I compare pictures from my A7R2 42MP/FF against my A850 24MP/FF camera shot with the same lens. However, already my Ricoh GXR-M 12MP/APS-C camera beats the 24MP/FF one because of its missing AA-filter at same sensor pixel density per square millimeter. Anyway, the higher pixel density combined with no AA-filter of the A7R2/3 is hardly to beat nowadays. Therefore lens test results must always be seen as the combination of the lens and a specific camera/sensor used.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking a lens out and about will be of limited use as a test.

This is my standard procedure for comparing lenses:

Use a proper printed test chart pinned to a wall/door.

Put your camera on a tripod. Set the lens at one or more of your preferred apertures. Set the focus, preferably with any in-camera magnification aid*. Set the camera to anti-shock (at least 8 seconds). Press the shutter releases and back well away from the setup.

* If you are on an indoor floor other than concrete removing your weight from next to the tripod may change the focus enough to be critical.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You go out there, shoot some photos and see if you like the outcome. That's how you test.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gardener wrote:
You go out there, shoot some photos and see if you like the outcome. That's how you test.


Agreed.
It's never been more scientific than that to me.

Unless you're an optical engineer, there seems no point to rigidly-structured testing
and comparisons. If you're able to accurately focus it, if it produces pleasing images,
if it's simple enough to operate without awkwardness, if it properly focuses to infinity
when/if needed, and if it's a lens you'll continue to use, then it's perfect for you.

I have a very small collection as compared to others here, but those I have,
are all in excellent condition. I have been lucky in my acquisitions.
My only testing has been limited to infinity checks on a couple, with the rest
and all being only to determine if the focus is accurate as compared to what I see
in the viewfinder.

The resolution charts/grids/tables do not interest me.
The focus charts are of use if you need to adjust for back/front focus.
You could spend a lifetime analyzing and comparing lenses, but what would be the point
to it if it's not your occupation to do so? If you don't have explicit reasons to conduct
such rigorous testing and comparisons, but you do anyway, you've perhaps lost
the meaning of what photography is as an enjoyable pastime or hobby.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lens test chart tells me nothing I want to know about a lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gardener wrote:
You go out there, shoot some photos and see if you like the outcome. That's how you test.


Exactly!! Like 1 Like 1 Like 1

Trying to do some optical testing only tests the ability (or lack thereof) of the tester, as having it properly done needs an enormous amout of precision that only an optical lab can provide (have seen that at Zeiss and other places)!!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
Test the lens in the way you want to use it. You can made the best out of the lens if you understand its weakness and strength.
Agree.