|Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Two 35mm lens comparison
|Hey, the title is too ambitious. Just simply compare/shoot the same scene
and add comments. One of lenses is AF only, so it was too difficult to focus
the exactly same point, more or less.
Left side: CZ G-planar 2/35mm with G2 (manual aperture and shutter setting)
Right side: CV Ultron 1.7/35mm with Bessa-R4M (manual only)
The film used is FUJI Reala (ISO 100), and scanner is V700 with 2,400 dpi no USM.
Each photo were auot-colour adjusted by PSE (PS Element), no other PP were done except for resizing.
NOTE: if photos not showed LEFT & RIGHT, the top is G-Planar 35 and the bottom is Ultron 35.
@f2 At this wide aperture, aberration seems to worse for Ultron 35, even though it is sharper than G-Planar 35.
@f5.6 More or less same sharpness to me,
@f2 again Outer area of G-Planar shot is much softer than Ultron 35's, which was expected (by me)
@f2 too (somehow exposure was fairly different, G-Planar photo was adjusted to match Ulron's)
@f2 this one is not good, they were focused totally different place (see only colour please)
G-Planar 35 is considerably wider field of view than Ultron, and has consistently more colour saturation.
One thing I noticed is G-Planar seems to have deeper DoF at the same aperture, though my focusing might be faulty too.
Generally Ultron 35mm is sharper lens at wider apertures, but less saturated colour (comparing to Zeiss' by the way),
I cannot tell which has nicer drawing in general. My conclusion is that it is very hard to compare lenses.
One thing I forgot to say, or two. G-Planar can focus to 50cm while Ultron can go only to 90cm. And CV Ultron 35mm is
faster lens with F1.7, which may be useful for some. YMMV
My Home Page has 14,062 photos in 504 directories today.
|Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject:
|[quote="Orio"]Nice idea of comparison, Koji.
Although the detail is comparable, the two lenses seem to perform differently with regards to the character of the bokeh.
It is difficult to express an opinion about colours because the photos were colour-corrected by the software.
Same about the detail without detail enlargements.
Overall it's possible to say that both lenses are good, and the difference between them is mostly a matter of individual preference.[/quote]
I think as Orio.
Both are OK, taste quid.
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Misc. : jupiter 9
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar.