The biGGest Test of prime normal lens

Srdjan · Joined: 11 Apr 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Nis

Hi everyone I have plans to make one of the biggest test of prime normal manual lens. I have big collection I will have time to make test and then to sell them. Unfortunately I have Canon 60d with crop sensor so test will not give information on the corners of picture. So I not sure how to test lenses so everyone can give me some suggestions to test them as much as I can, because I will not have them for long, summer is near and I ned money for vacation Smile

My collection is:
Carl Zeiss Tessar 2.8 50 , M42 silver version,
---------------------2.8 50 , M42 silver version, written made in German
---------------------2.8 50, M42 later version, 2 semples
Carl Zeiss Biotar 2.8 58 T, M42 silver version
Carl Zeiss Pancolar 1.8 50, M42 zebra 8 blades yellow glass version
--------------------------------------zebra 6 blades normal glass version
--------------------------------------MC red
--------------------------------------MC red electric
-------------------------------------MC white
--------------------------------------MC white electric
Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8 50 Planar HFT, Rollei/Voitlander, made in Singapour
Voitlander color-ultron 1.8 50, Rollei/Voitlander , made in Singapour
Voitlander color-ultron 1.8 50, Rollei/Voitlander, made in Rollei Singapour
Yashica ML 50 1.7, Yashica /Contax
and probably
Carl Zeiss Planar 1.4 50 T*, Yashica /Contax
and if I find somehow money
Carl Zeiss Flektogon 4 50, Pentacon Six, MC version

maybe I forgot something, but thats all i think

aspen · Expire: 2014-02-20

Hi Srdjan, good luck with your plans!
I, personally, am not interested in head-to-head comparisons of these particular lenses. They are all well known, I think, and they each have a different set of characteristics which distinguish them apart from one another. If your intent is to sell them, then I am more interested, primarily, in the condition of the lens. So, photos of the lens is important.
Of course, the samples are nice also. The tessars stopped down shine. I would like to see the Ultrons and the f1.8 Rollei Planar shot open all the way; would be interesting to see a comparison there Wink

Ghost2501 · Joined: 26 Apr 2012 Posts: 102 Location: Belgium

Wow, that's a lot of 50's.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

You don't have a lot of 50s until you have too many to keep count of, I have no idea how many I have but it's a lot Wink

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

A really useful comparison test involves use of laboratory-grade MTF measurements; rather expensive equipment is required for that.

Photo examples of the lens used in regular photo-making can also be useful for distinguishing lens qualities in differing situations, with different types of subjects, etc.. These can be positive additions to the collection of example images from the same lens as used by others.

Direct comparisons are imho extremely difficult; I don't remember ever seeing a comparison where the focus point is accurately maintained over images from only 2 different lenses, in an attempt to compare "sharpness", for example. Lens comparisons take a lot of hard work and much time to do properly, if that's even possible.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Srdjan · Joined: 11 Apr 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Nis

Thank you everyone for advices. My idea is somehow to contribute to this forum, instead just to use it to sell lenses (that I will have to do at the end). At this time really I don't have too much time but I wanted to compare this lenses and give somehow guide to people who is new with manual lenses (more or less like me) with yours help. I didn't have intentions to make the best of, and I understand that I have just small collection of 50mm lenses. I m not collector, my collection is result of trying to find best lens for me, and I was thinking to someone else help not to spent a lot of money like me Smile

I m child of digital photography and I m learning about advances and joy of manual lenses. I don't wont to make silly test, but probably it is true I m not the expert in this field of testing lenses. My second job is photographer, and my hobby is to fix manual lenses (probably like most of people here). For some kind of test I really need support what is the best way to do it, but if there is no interest in that udea I m fine with it. Idea is was to compare lenses, most of them Carl Zeiss during of history. I m perfectionist and all of them are in very good and mint condition, and carefully picked. One photo of lenses

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

I would be interested in a comparison. Pick a nice subject, put the camera on a tripod and shoot away with all the lenses. Everyone understands that the lighting will change during the shoot but it would be fun to see the different characters of the lenses.

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

From my own experiences on 5DmkII:
Rollei Planars/Ultrons 1.8/50 are equal in performance. Very slight differences in color and contrast rendering - newer lenses have better contrast.

C/Y Planars 1.4/50 and 1.7/50 vs. Rollei Planar/Ultron 1.8/50 vs. CZ Planar 1.4/50 ZE
All these lenses are very close in performance. Rollei Planar/Ultron is sharpest wide-open in center area. C/Y Planar 1.7/50 is best in field uniformity sharpness at wider apertures. C/Y Planar 1.4/50 and new ZE version are equal in sharpness, C/Y version is slightly colder in colors and very slightly lower contrast. Corner sharpness at same aperture slightly lags behind 1.7/50 and is about equal to 1.8/50. I have no problem use any of this lenses.

Yashica 1.4/50 ML is overall slightly behind it's Planar equivalent in all areas. Especially contrast is lower.

CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 has more copy variability, than variability between versions. Overall at wide apertures it can't match Planars contrast and sharpness. Stopped down to f8 the corner sharpness still lags even behind Planar 1.4/50 at same aperture.

CZJ Tessar 2.8/50 is soft up to f5.6 even on crop cameras. It never reaches the crispness of Pancolar at smaller apertures. I've not tested it on FF yet.

CZJ Biotar 2/58 is comparable to Pancolar, but corners lack at comparable apertures. Again only crop observations.

Jethro Tull · Joined: 31 Dec 2010 Posts: 68 Location: SCOTLAND

Suppose no'one's interested in my project " The Worlds Biggest Plastic Lens Cap Test" ? after spending 5 years testing plastic quality and spring clip tension Rolling Eyes

Oh well i might aswell continue sorting my vast collection of used Bic Biro Pens and my imitation tortoise shell plastic combs Wink

once complete i intend opening a Pen and Comb Museum................
ps does anyone have a blue plastic cap for a 1984 Biro? (the one with orange plastic body and multi faceted sides to stop it rolling off ones desk) Twisted Evil

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

****CZJ Tessar 2.8/50 is soft up to f5.6 even on crop cameras. It never reaches the crispness of Pancolar at smaller apertures. I've not tested it on FF yet.***

Well I have on a film camera and there are better nifty fifty's lenses.....cheaper or a few ��s more so why would anyone buy one I'll never understand (erm probably because of the magic word "Tessar" so it must be good Rolling Eyes

).

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

ramiller500 · Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject:

I use a Canon FL Macro 50mm/3.5 lens, which is a Tessar by another name, and it's outstanding in all respects.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/19-85/fl_m50_35.html

Auction prices for these are very reasonable.

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

There are many great Tessar based lenses. CZJ Tessar 3.5/50, CZJ Tessar 4.5/40, Macro Takumar and Pentax-M 4/50... Unfortunately, the 2.8/50 version seems slightly overstretched to me. They just tried to do it too fast.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I repeat, I have had at least 10 copies of the 2.8/50 and all of them were sharp at all apertures, inc 2.8. I still have a few copies, if you have a Tessar that wasn't sharp it was faulty, no doubt about it.

Zebra version in Exakta, at 2.8:

Zebra version in M42, at 2.8:

Silver 1950s version in M42, at 2.8:

All black 1980s version in M42, at 5.6:

All black 1980s export version marked aus Jena T, at f4:

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

All those Tessars Ian counted reach 50 EUR on Ebay if trustworthy seller and lens in mint state. They were all made in series of millions so not rare at all. That says something. My experience of sharpness wide open is also positive.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic