View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:40 pm Post subject: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Here is a test I did earlier this year, it took some time but now it's all done and uploaded.
As we all know normal lenses come in many shapes and forms. Every camera maker made a whole bunch of them. They usually have 3-7 lens elements. Most of us have our own favorites. The question is, do I have too much free time... Sorry The question is, are there any differences and if so how big? This test is centered around wide open aperture characteristics.
Camera: Sony A7 on tripod.
White balance: manual. Differences in color are due to the lenses.
Subject: My grandmother, thanks for staying perfectly still!
Conclusions: Check the end of the post.
Enjoy!
(Edit) Be aware of sloppy naming of the lenses. And one lens seems to appear twice.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42
Conclusions.
The older Auto Takumar and newer SMC Takumar show very small differences.
The Zenitar has noticeably more background blur than the other f/1.7 lenses, maybe it is closer to f/1.6
The Singapore Rollei planar has more red colors then the German version. By taste, the Singapore wins. (Edit, disregard this I think it's due to difference in light due to clouds.
The Olympus f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses has some of the most chaotic bokeh. But, it may not be noticeable here. However, they have incredible 3d pop/micro contrast or whatever you want to call it. Some kind of magic going on, similar to the Zeiss magic.
The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.
In the battle of the wider primes, Hexanon vs Rokkor. The 45mm Rokkor has the edge over the 40mm Hexanon in bokeh quality. Both are great otherwise.
Interesting Meyer results. The older zebra version has more bokeh edge highlights. I recommend this version for crazier bokeh.
My Helios 103 has low contrast, could be an adapter issue.
My personal favorites, not ranked:
Rollei Planar 50mm f/1.8
C/Y Planar 50mm f/1.4
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2
Olympus 50mm f/1.4
Olympus 55mm f/1.2
X-Fujinon 55mm f/1.6
Macro Takumar 50mm f/4
Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra
Helios 103
If you want to see 100% crops from any lens just ask and I will serve!
Last edited by blotafton on Wed May 26, 2021 10:19 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
invisible
Joined: 06 Jun 2013 Posts: 344
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
invisible wrote:
First off, many thanks for the effort. This post must have taken quite a bit of time (and that's not even including the time to set the camera/lenses up and taking the photos).
No Nikon lenses? I would've loved to see how the 50/1.2, and maybe even 55/1.2, would perform vis à vis the others.
The Riconar's performance is embarrassing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
invisible wrote: |
First off, many thanks for the effort. This post must have taken quite a bit of time (and that's not even including the time to set the camera/lenses up and taking the photos).
No Nikon lenses? I would've loved to see how the 50/1.2, and maybe even 55/1.2, would perform vis à vis the others.
The Riconar's performance is embarrassing. |
Thank you! The worst part was to carry all of the lenses outside and then back in again
I don't have much from Nikon unfortunately. In the beginning I chose Konica and Minolta for low prices. And now I'm mostly covered when it comes to focal lengths. The 55mm f/1.2 would be interesting to try though.
The Riconar is fun. Stopped down and longer distances works like you'd expect but close up at 2.2 is really dreamy. I think they din't even bother to compute the design
Check the interesting effect here: http://forum.mflenses.com/riconar-55mm-f-2-2-t77166.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe
Joined: 23 Jul 2015 Posts: 602 Location: South Finland, countryside
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe wrote:
great project! _________________ (my normal account password still on another computer) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sjak
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sjak wrote:
Cool test, thanks for sharing!
The Zenitar holds up very nicely in this bunch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
Very interesting, thanks! _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 305 Location: EU
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
Sure the Rokkor 55/1.7 is very nice. To my eyes Zenitar-M 50/1.7 and Takumars 1.8 are also pleasing.
Thanks for the test. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gatorengineer64
Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 283
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:21 pm Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time and sharing. Were these shot same day? Reason I am asking is that your comparison is also good for color rendition.
Since you like trying different 50s I have to suggest the Zeiss Ultron Concave 50 1.8.... As a recent post points out its a different animal and is now my favorite 50, my Porst 50 F1.2 is number two and used when I want dreamy, then the Alpa Macro, and my under used Topcons. _________________ A7R4, GFX50R and a bucket of mflenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
awesome test. Reminded me Fujinon F2.2 is such a fun lens. And 1.6/55mm should also be used more. That Riconar is defect. Zuiko 1.2 should perform better. One Oreston has minor fault or haze. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Slalom
Joined: 10 Dec 2017 Posts: 158 Location: Stourbridge
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slalom wrote:
well done |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2963 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
_________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Thanks everyone!
Gatorengineer64 wrote: |
Thanks for taking the time and sharing. Were these shot same day? Reason I am asking is that your comparison is also good for color rendition.
Since you like trying different 50s I have to suggest the Zeiss Ultron Concave 50 1.8.... As a recent post points out its a different animal and is now my favorite 50, my Porst 50 F1.2 is number two and used when I want dreamy, then the Alpa Macro, and my under used Topcons. |
Shot the same day but unfortunately the clouds moved away at the end so there were mixed light. I'd like to have that Ultron, but assumed it was very expensive. Just checked the bay and yep, expensive!
The Porst is very nice agreed!
Pancolart wrote: |
awesome test. Reminded me Fujinon F2.2 is such a fun lens. And 1.6/55mm should also be used more. That Riconar is defect. Zuiko 1.2 should perform better. One Oreston has minor fault or haze. |
Thank you. I love the Fujinons, learned about them on this site! Can you confirm that the Riconar is defect? All samples I have seen online looks like this.
The old (zebra) Oreston has some particles in that may interfere. What is wrong with the Zuiko? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I was scrolling down thinking "that's nice" "I've got that" and generally thinking that it would be hard to tell which lens could be recognized from the pictures alone, then along came the Fujinon 55 / 2.2, which is unmistakable, and a riot of bubble bokeh. I rarely use mine, but I'd never sell the damn thing, it's far too much fun.
I agree with your list of favourites, although I haven't got the Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra, Helios 103 or the Olympus 55mm f/1.2
The Takumar 50 / 4 Macro is an exceptional lens, who cares if its slow? _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gatorengineer64
Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 283
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
I picked my ultron up for about 175 as it was part of a poorly described Icarex kit. Not cheap but a great lens... _________________ A7R4, GFX50R and a bucket of mflenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Thank you for sharing your test.
A similar comparison is still on my "to do"-list as the effort is rather huge because my collection of lenses in this focal length is quite big as well.
Up to now I only managed it to do it with some "fast" fifties as can be seen here: http://forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-fast-50s-t76796.html
As your test shows it's quite interesting to include slower lenses and even macro lenses or zooms.
However, I am still not clear about the best test scenario which would show the different lens characteristics best. But at least I will think about once more..... _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true. |
I dunno, I think the Auto Rokkor 55mm f/1.8 had an impressive showing. Some of the softest bokeh of the lot -- if not the softest. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 289 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: 42 Lens Mega Bokeh Test! |
|
|
sergun wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
Conclusions.
The older Auto Takumar and newer SMC Takumar show very small differences.
The Zenitar has noticeably more background blur than the other f/1.7 lenses, maybe it is closer to f/1.6
The Singapore Rollei planar has more red colors then the German version. By taste, the Singapore wins.
The Olympus f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses has some of the most chaotic bokeh. But, it may not be noticeable here. However, they have incredible 3d pop/micro contrast or whatever you want to call it. Some kind of magic going on, similar to the Zeiss magic.
The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true.
In the battle of the wider primes, Hexanon vs Rokkor. The 45mm Rokkor has the edge over the 40mm Hexanon in bokeh quality. Both are great otherwise.
Interesting Meyer results. The older zebra version has more bokeh edge highlights. I recommend this version for crazier bokeh.
My Helios 103 has low contrast, could be an adapter issue.
My personal favorites, not ranked:
Rollei Planar 50mm f/1.8
C/Y Planar 50mm f/1.4
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2
Olympus 50mm f/1.4
Olympus 55mm f/1.2
X-Fujinon 55mm f/1.6
Macro Takumar 50mm f/4
Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra
Helios 103
If you want to see 100% crops from any lens just ask and I will serve! |
Great test, great work. Hats off to you. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
I was scrolling down thinking "that's nice" "I've got that" and generally thinking that it would be hard to tell which lens could be recognized from the pictures alone, then along came the Fujinon 55 / 2.2, which is unmistakable, and a riot of bubble bokeh. I rarely use mine, but I'd never sell the damn thing, it's far too much fun.
I agree with your list of favourites, although I haven't got the Oreston 50mm f/1.8 zebra, Helios 103 or the Olympus 55mm f/1.2
The Takumar 50 / 4 Macro is an exceptional lens, who cares if its slow? |
You got good taste! Yes the 2.2/55 is easy to spot haha!
Some say the Olympus 55mm f/1.2 is the worst 1.2 lens. And I understand those who think so but don't agree. It just has the most character! A good thing to consider when shopping for a 1.2. My copy is in great condition and preform as I expected but it might be something wrong with it according to Pancolart, and that might be the case.
Oh yes the Macro Takumar is so nice. I use it every time for product photography and general macro. My other macros are the nFD 50mm f/3.5, Hexanon 55mm 3.5 and Rokkor 50mm f/3.5. But the Takumar is my favorite, and the Rokkor the opposite. It is good at macro but quite soft at non macro. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Gatorengineer64 wrote: |
I picked my ultron up for about 175 as it was part of a poorly described Icarex kit. Not cheap but a great lens... |
Not bad! I'd change my 184 EUR turd Prakticar 1.4/50 for that in a heartbeat!
tb_a wrote: |
Thank you for sharing your test.
A similar comparison is still on my "to do"-list as the effort is rather huge because my collection of lenses in this focal length is quite big as well.
Up to now I only managed it to do it with some "fast" fifties as can be seen here: http://forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-fast-50s-t76796.html
As your test shows it's quite interesting to include slower lenses and even macro lenses or zooms.
However, I am still not clear about the best test scenario which would show the different lens characteristics best. But at least I will think about once more..... |
I'm glad people seems to enjoy it!
That's a nice smaller test you've done. Plan to have the whole day free for a big test. I was inspired by another member here that made a great test in the garden with several f/1.2 lenses. Can't remember who unfortunately. There is also the indoor version. It's best to use a big room. Put up a good subject and small lights, Christmas lighting for example in the background that will reveal the bokeh quality.
cooltouch wrote: |
blotafton wrote: |
The 55mm f/1.7 Rokkor has impressive smoothness. There is some hype about this lens, now you can compare and see if it's true. |
I dunno, I think the Auto Rokkor 55mm f/1.8 had an impressive showing. Some of the softest bokeh of the lot -- if not the softest. |
I wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a blind test. Both are good bokeh-makers. I need to put them to more use!
sergun wrote: |
Great test, great work. Hats off to you. |
Thanks man! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spokklocka
Joined: 14 Jan 2015 Posts: 50
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spokklocka wrote:
Thanks for this comprehensive test!
The Zenitar 50 1,7 has very smooth bokeh, as mentioned. Interesting to see the difference between the Rokkor 58 1,4 older versions and newest version. Sharpness for bokeh. Kind if like the Rokkor 58 1,2 vs the 50 1,2 (which I would have liked to see in the comparison - you can't have everything though . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
quidam
Joined: 28 Sep 2012 Posts: 222 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quidam wrote:
Nice work, that Macro Takumar preset is really a hell of a lens, despite its age.
_________________ Sony Nex 5 & 6, Sony A7II. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big R
Joined: 29 Nov 2010 Posts: 42
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big R wrote:
Having a Minolta MC 50 f1.7 and MD 45 f2 and being on the lookout for a 55 f1.7 this really is an interesting comparison. For me it makes me questioning getting a MC 55 f1.7 (prices are going up at the moment), because the difference (focal length aside) is a lot less than I thought.
I'm also surprised by the MD 45 - it's no portrait lens but outstanding concerning it's class in it's time (cheap, plasticky normal-lens). As a normal lens I also like the 45mm focal length better than 50mm. And it's very lightweight, too (if only the adaptor would be lighter as well!). _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/commanderbrot/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Spokklocka wrote: |
Thanks for this comprehensive test!
The Zenitar 50 1,7 has very smooth bokeh, as mentioned. Interesting to see the difference between the Rokkor 58 1,4 older versions and newest version. Sharpness for bokeh. Kind if like the Rokkor 58 1,2 vs the 50 1,2 (which I would have liked to see in the comparison - you can't have everything though . |
If someone gives me 50mm f/1.2 Rokkor I promise to test it
And about the 1.4/58 Rokkors. The "old" is the Auto Rokkor and "new" is the MC Rokkor.
quidam wrote: |
Nice work, that Macro Takumar preset is really a hell of a lens, despite its age.
|
It sure is! Cheers!
Big R wrote: |
Having a Minolta MC 50 f1.7 and MD 45 f2 and being on the lookout for a 55 f1.7 this really is an interesting comparison. For me it makes me questioning getting a MC 55 f1.7 (prices are going up at the moment), because the difference (focal length aside) is a lot less than I thought.
I'm also surprised by the MD 45 - it's no portrait lens but outstanding concerning it's class in it's time (cheap, plasticky normal-lens). As a normal lens I also like the 45mm focal length better than 50mm. And it's very lightweight, too (if only the adaptor would be lighter as well!). |
Yes the differences in bokeh is small in the majority of the test. When considering other things, your 50mm Rokkor probably has better coating than the 55.
The 45mm is great as well, just move a bit closer and you got a portrait lens! It even works well on the new medium format fuji!
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crouu
Joined: 02 Jan 2018 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
crouu wrote:
Thank you for sharing the test, it's very useful. I like the look of the Zuiko 50/1.4s the most in these images. Also the 103. The look of the Rokkor 50s is a bit strong for me. I didn't see a picture made with a Rokkor 45/2 but it's a lens I do use quite often and is very good. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
I'm glad you liked it!
Image #15 is the MD Rokkor 45mm f/2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|