View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: 100 mm league test.. |
|
|
trifox wrote:
I have found quite interesting test on web
http://24x36.org/tests/100mm/test100mm.html
There were 4 lenses tested
1 - Nikon Nikkor 105 f2.5
2 - Contax Planar 2/100
3 - Canon Macro 2.8/100
4 - Planar 2/110 Hasseblad F mount
Nikon is GREAT in this case.
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57849 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I know only Nikkor from this group, one of the best lens in this focal range in my opinion too. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10471 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!
the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass
Last edited by poilu on Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16541 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
I knew there must have been something wrong... _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bruce
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 842 Location: Boston, Ma USA
Expire: 2014-11-22
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bruce wrote:
Hey, its just a small detail... point of focus.
someone has a small bias?
and I dont mean its TF _________________ Digital: Canon 40d & 5DmkII, Film: Hasselblad 203fe/Zeiss 80/2.8 cfe
Adapters for EOS: Cy; M42; Zenit39; Exakta; LeicaR; OlympusOM; PK; Nikon; Rollei35; Retina; Adaptal; P-6 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Yeah, honestly I was surprised that the Canon 100/2.8 macro didn't show better results. I used to own one -- a New FD one -- and mine was incredibly sharp.
Clearly, the Canon had the best looking out-of-focus highlights, though.
Still, I presently own a 105/2.5 Nikkor, which I love, and I'm glad to see it performed so well. _________________ 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 |
|
|
pirius
Joined: 28 May 2009 Posts: 133 Location: SoFla
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
pirius wrote:
Sure, Canon 100/2.8 is sharp as hell. I had one, and I have Contax 100/2 now. It's probably about as sharp, definitely not sharper. Canon's sharpness is already over the top for everything except macro work. Hell, Biotar 75/1.5 is probably half as sharp as these two. For me the main difference though is when I look at photos taken with Canon, I look at the picture, and with photos taken with Contax I am in the picture. But I know enough people who don't feel the same way. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Personally, for portraits I am finding the topcor 100/2.8 is a rival for them all
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tuananhmap
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 Posts: 130
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
tuananhmap wrote:
Hi all,
I got Nikkor 105/2.5 , S-M-C 105/2.8, planar 100/2.8 makro, canon 100 macro.
I tested and I think Nikkor is not good, that why I sold Nikkor 105/2.5 .
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
poilu wrote: |
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!
the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass
|
How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
sichko wrote: |
poilu wrote: |
you are not able to detect bad focusing that render this test usefulness
shame on you tF!
the nikkor is focused on the banknote, the 100:2 on the chair, the macro nowhere and the hassy in a hass
|
How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ? |
_________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
I used to have both the Nikkor 2.5/105 and the Planar 2/100.
I rate them on the same level.
The Nikkor is maybe a bit sharper.
The Planar handles flare better and has more natural colours for portraits.
Bokeh is excellent in both.
CA is critical in both.
On Planar's advantage there is the half stop more speed
On Nikkor's advantage there is the much cheaper used price.
Due to price factor, the Nikkor represents the best buy between the two.
However if landscape shooting is more frequent than portrait, I would recommend an APO lens such as the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90,
because the CA can be critical in both Nikkor and Planar for landscape use.
P.S.please try not to embed such large images outside of galleries as it makes the reading of text quite awkward.
(I had to introduce arbitrary line breaks to keep the text readable without lateral scrolling)
P.P.S. I agree with poilu on the focusing, compare the Nikkor and Planar 100 corner crops, the Nikkor is perfectly focused, the Planar 100 is front-focused,
which you can tell by the wood stand which is sharp in the Planar 100's image and blurred in Nikkor's image. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
sichko wrote: |
How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ? |
So what? Focus must be the same in all pictures that you compare, else the comparison is flawed.
It does not matter where the ideal focus is, if one of the pictures is misfocused, then all portions of it are not comparable.
In this case of the corner, the banknote falls in perfect focus in the Nikkor's image, and obviously out of focus in the Planar 100's image,
where the focus falls on the front of the wood stand.
As a result you can not usefully compare those two crops. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
Orio wrote: |
sichko wrote: |
How do you know where the focus is ? Maybe it's in the centre of the picture and these crops are used to illustrate corner performance ? |
So what? Focus must be the same in all pictures that you compare, else the comparison is flawed. |
Agreed. However we don't know where the photographer has focused or attempted to focus. My guess is that it's the centre of the picture - the doll's nose. If the photographer has mis-focused in one of the pictures then this will be represented in the corner crop. However if the focusing is good then other factors might be responsible for the corner performances - different curvatures of field of the different lenses for example. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mflex-on
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
mflex-on wrote:
This test shows exactly the same result as my own "super tests": it is not easy to test on a kitchen table! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nelson
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 618 Location: close to Paris, France
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nelson wrote:
Is the canon a EF Lens ?
surprising result _________________ DSLR : EOS 350D, 300D, 7D, 5D
Pentacon 50 f1.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4;
TAIR 3S
Helios 44/2
Meyer Optik Orestegor 200mm f4 Orestegor 300mm f4
Tamron 24mm f2.5 01B, 300mm f5.6 670Au, 75 250, 300mm f5.6 SP 54B, 500mm f8 SP 55B, SP 70 210 3.5, SP 60 300
my MF lenses
EF 50 1.8 I, EF 100macro f2.8, EF 70-200 F4 L is, EFS 17-55 f2.8 is, Sigma 10-20 EX, 18-50 2.8 EX, 300 f4 hsm, 400 5.6 hsm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I read several times in forums that the sonnar design can be a bit sharper than the planar one. In this way, Orio said that the nikon 105/2,5 ( from a classical sonnar design in rangefinder lens to an hybrid AI-s with front elements in sonnar type and the rear element party in two - like biometar or xenotar 5 elements planars -) is a bit sharper than the planar.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
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.
Etc.
RF
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Nelson wrote: |
Is the canon a EF Lens ?
surprising result |
Not really.
This guy has tested one copy of each lens.
Who can be sure that one of these copies was not a lemon?
Perhaps his Canon was decentered or had another fault.
Don't trust lens test that you did not bias youself.
Lens test are fun, nothing more, really. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
estudleon wrote: |
I read several times in forums that the sonnar design can be a bit sharper than the planar one. In this way, Orio said that the nikon 105/2,5 ( from a classical sonnar design in rangefinder lens to an hybrid AI-s with front elements in sonnar type and the rear element party in two - like biometar or xenotar 5 elements planars -) is a bit sharper than the planar.
Rino. |
No, Rino. The 2.5/105 AI is a double gauss (planar) type.
I used to have also the pre-AI 2.5/105 which was a Sonnar type and it rendered completely different images. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Orio
Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.
Lucispictor
I like so much your serious test
http://lucispictor.weebly.com/80test2.html
I think that a test can be usefull. Perhaps not definitive, yes, but usefull.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
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.
Etc.
RF
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
estudleon wrote: |
Orio
Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.
|
Are you sure about this?
Bjrn Rorslett states that the pre-AI is Sonnar and the AI(s) is Gauss:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
Orio wrote: |
estudleon wrote: |
Orio
Sorry, but I found differences between the big second front element in the nikon AI-s and the planar design (more thin in all the casus: xenotar, planar, biometar). The nikkor AI-s maintains the front design that the P had, only not 4 elements, only three and add one rear element. I don't think that thick front element could be a planar design.
|
Are you sure about this?
Bjrn Rorslett states that the pre-AI is Sonnar and the AI(s) is Gauss:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html |
Nikon describe the AI as a Xenotar-type lens a modified Gauss.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
atominoMF
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 Posts: 12 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
atominoMF wrote:
TRIFOX, another great lenses are KIRON 100/2.8 and for portrait also Nikkor Serie E 100/2.8. Atomino |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I don't believe curvature of field at ~100mm focal length can account for the differences in in-focus areas shown in these results. Curvature of field for all these lenses is probably very similar, given that they're all about the same focal length. The Canon, being a Macro, may have the flattest, but probably not by much.
When I do a lens comparison, I am very careful to focus on the exact same spot. Anything else and the comparison is not valid.
About all this "comparison" shows me is how good the Nikkor 105's overall performance is. I suspect the performance of the other three lenses is quite a bit better than that shown, especially the Hassy's. Those images almost look as if there was camera shake. The tester should have locked up the Hassy's mirror. _________________ 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 |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Nikon page say :This design is based on the Xenotar-type lens (5 lenses, 4 groups) with thick, convex lenses, rather than the Sonnar type with its many asymmetric components.
It's very possible that the "many assymetric components" of the sonnar could be done in one thick in the nikkor lens. Sato doesn't give to us more dates (I.R. of the group, positive-negative index, type of glass used - flint, etc-) to have a deep conclusion.
In the gauss xenotar type the second and third frontal elements are thinner than in the nikkor newer 105. The xenotar lenses haven't a "THICK" second frontal element.
Perhaps more than a xenotar or sonnar classics design, it may be a sui generis design, call it on one way or in another.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
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.
Etc.
RF
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|