| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:44 pm Post subject: Seven 50s compared. |
 |
|
revers wrote:
I Shot the same frame with seven 50 something FL this morning to compare the results since it is a current topic here on the forum. All were shot @ f4.0 so not to shoot any lens wide open. Focus was set on the statue forehead. All pics have had identical minimal treatment.
1. Minolta Celtic 50/3.5 macro
2. Minolta 50/1.4
3. Sears 50/2
4. Industar 50/3.5
5. Takumar 55/1.8
6. Minolta 55/1.7
7. Helios 44-2 58/2
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Arctures
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arctures wrote:
Very nice results. Helios looks really good  Actually Helios corners are not sharp at all. At least it were on several Helioses I've tried.
_________________
Sony A7, NEX-5n, Panasonic GH5(Oly12-40/2. , Contax Distagon T* 28/2.8, Contax Planar T* 50/1.4, Contax T* 80-200/4,
Minolta Rokkor MC 58/1.2, Minolta MC Rokkor-X PF 50/1.7, Minolta MD 50/2.0, Konica Hexanon AR 50/1.8,
Konica Hexanon 57/1.4, Rokkor-PF 55/1.7, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Auto Yashinon 50/2.0, Canon FD 50/3.5
Voigtl�nder APO Lanthar 90/3.5 M42, Topcon RE.Topcor 58/1.8, Helios-44-2 58/2.0, Canon FD 24/2.8,
Canon FD 135/2.5 SC, Auto Topcor 135/3.5, Pentax SMC 55/1.8, Minolta 35/2.8, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
First pass, examining certain minute details on my own PC, I'd say they are all nearly indistinguishable except for the Celtic which was softer. There was a difference in bokeh in two others, but in sharpness, I thought only the Sears stood up to the Minolta f/1.4. But again, the differences were minute. I was careful not to mistake image size for sharpness. However, even after that conclusion of my own, I think you could introduce pictures from several and we would not be able to identify the lens without lucky guess. f/4 is an equalizer.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
megalania
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
megalania wrote:
Helios does look a little soft on the edges, but overall they look pretty close. Good review. thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tikkathree
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 755
Location: Lovely Suffolk in Great Britain
Expire: 2012-12-28
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
tikkathree wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for this post. The results are really very useful for me in that they demonstrate how slight are the differences between the various lenses.
Now I need to ponder on which bokeh I find the most attractive and for that I need a few minutes more......
_________________
I used to think digital was fun but then I discovered film, then I found old lenses and then, eventually I found rangefinders.
EOS 5DII, loadsalenses
Canon G9 IR conv,
MF: TLR, 645 and folders
35mm: Oly OM Pro bodies 1, 2, 3 and 4; Soviet RF kit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
| tikkathree wrote: |
Hi,
Thank you for this post. The results are really very useful for me in that they demonstrate how slight are the differences between the various lenses.
Now I need to ponder on which bokeh I find the most attractive and for that I need a few minutes more...... |
The bokeh of the Canon 50/1.4 is very pleasant if you are looking for the creamy bokeh. May be only Sigma 50/1.4 is better in this department IMHO. You can find some lens comparison here http://gallery.me.com/om1er#gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ylyad
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Posts: 476
Location: Zentralschweiz
Expire: 2013-12-05
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
ylyad wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| First pass, examining certain minute details on my own PC, I'd say they are all nearly indistinguishable except for the Celtic which was softer. There was a difference in bokeh in two others, but in sharpness, I thought only the Sears stood up to the Minolta f/1.4. But again, the differences were minute. I was careful not to mistake image size for sharpness. However, even after that conclusion of my own, I think you could introduce pictures from several and we would not be able to identify the lens without lucky guess. f/4 is an equalizer. |
I feel relieved, because I'm not able to distinguish any real differences in terms of image quality or sharpness. Sure, the bokeh is different from one to the other (my personal preference goes to the Takumar and the Helios) but the foreground is barely identical in my eyes.
_________________
Camera: Fuji X-E2, Fuji X100T
MF: Canon nFD 50/1.4, Canon nFD 100/2.8, Tokina RMC 135/2.8
Tamron SP 24-48/3.5-3.8
http://www.flickr.com/derdide/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
Thanks for your comments guys.
The Celtic Macro is not good for other than close work methinks. I find the Minolta 50/1.4 maybe edges out the others & I also like the Helios 44-2. But on the whole, there is little difference between all of them @ f4.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goombles
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
Posts: 136
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
goombles wrote:
Have to agree with sherlock. Exact same file size. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
Looks like I screwed up somehow, the Minolta 55/1.7 is the wrong file & I cannot edit the post to correct it. Here is the correct pic:
Perhaps Admin can put it into the original post in place of the one wrongfully there.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
I certainly wouldn't want to make a living on the difference in these lenses at f4.
Revers, would you consider doing these again wide open with a hood at least for the Minolta f1.4, f1.7 and Tak f1.8?
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
| Blue wrote: |
I certainly wouldn't want to make a living on the difference in these lenses at f4.
Revers, would you consider doing these again wide open with a hood at least for the Minolta f1.4, f1.7 and Tak f1.8? |
And hope I do not screw up again. Maybe tomorrow Blue.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
edit duplicate
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter.
Last edited by revers on Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
edit duplicate
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter.
Last edited by revers on Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
edit duplicate
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
