Several (bookshelf and tree) tests...

[LucisPictor]

Hi!

I have done several bookshelf and other tests recently (28mm, 35mm and 50ish mm lenses), but I have to find a better way to present the testshots before I will publish all of them.


Here are the results...

23-28mm

1.) Nikkor-N.C 2.8/24

2.) Kiron 2.0/28
2.) Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 2.8/28 (Komine)
2.) Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 2.5/28 (Kiron)
2.) Pentax SMC-M 2.8/28
2.) Tamron 2.5/24 BBAR MC 01B

3.) Yashica ML 2.8/28
3.) Petri 2.8/28 MC Macro

4.) Raynox Auto 2.8/28

5.) Hanimex 3.5/23

The lenses on second place are really close!

Carsten
(Updated... I added 23/24mm lenses.)

[LucisPictor]

35mm results:

1) Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/35

2) Nikkor-O 2.0/35

3) Asahi SMC Takumar 3.5/35
3) MIR-1B 2.8/37

4) Porst WW 1.8/35 MC Auto H (but the fastest!)

5) Soligor Wide-Auto 2.8/35

6) Revuenon-Special 2.8/35


The MIR and the Tak are very close! The MIR is even sharper at f8.
The Soligor follows in quite a distance and the Revuenon is clearly last!

(Updated...again...)

[LucisPictor]

50ish mm results:

1.) Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55

2.) Asahi Pentax SMC 1.7/50
2.) Rollei Planar 1.8/50
2.) MC Volna-9 2.8/50 Macro
2.) Auto Revuenon 1.4/55 (Tomioka)
2.) Canon EF 1.8/50 II (AF-lens, plastic but good glass)

3.) Nikkor-H 2.0/50
3.) Mamiya Auto Sekor 1.8/55

4.) Yashica ML 1.7/50
4.) Pentacon auto 1.8/50
4.) Helios-44M-6 2/58 MC
4.) Helios-44-2 2/58

5.) Auto Rikenon 1.7/50
5.) Yashica Auto Yashinon 2.0/50
5.) Industar-50-2 3.5/50

6.) Petri Auto C.C. 1.7/50 (poorly built, but surprisingly nice pictures / sold)
7.) Auto Reflecta 1.7/55 (quite good at f8, though / sold)

C.
(Updated...again...)

[LucisPictor]

135mm results (MF primes):

1.) Nikkor-QC 3.5/135
1.) Jupiter 37-A 3.5/135

2.) Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/135 1Q (newer version)
2.) Jupiter-11 4/135

3.) Revuenon-Spezial 2.8/135
3.) Pentacon auto 2.8/135
3.) Weltblick 3.5/135
3.) Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/135 1Q (older version)

4.) Enna Tele-Ennalyt 3.5/135

5.) Opticam 2.8/135
5.) Tamron Tasei Kogaku 2.8/135
5.) Raynox Auto 2.8/135
5.) Panagor Auto Tele 2.8/135

6.) Greens London 3.5/135 (big surprise! But now broken!)

Carsten


EDIT: I took the zoom lenses away. It's just the 135mm primes now.

(Updated...again...)

[Orio]

Carsten, where are the links?

[Attila]

[Attila]

[LucisPictor]

[LucisPictor]

[Paul]

[Attila]

Is Cosina make today Carl Zeiss lenses ?

[Paul]

[Paul]

[LucisPictor]

Lists updated!

C.

[Himself]

Everybody's making tests with our lenses. Than we post some technicalities like : mirror lock up, exposure time, ISO bla, bla.
I've never found out one thing in these tests either they were made here or on the other forum.
It's well known that bigger the distance smaller the sharpness and not only.
It's about DISTANCE between the camera and the subject(s) of the test.
I'm saying this because it's a big difference having a subject ( usually a brick wall or a bookshelf) at 2 metres away and having the same suject 6 metres away.

So, here is my question :

Which is the right or proper distance for each focal lenght or wich is the range for each focal where the subject might be situated, for a test to be more or less suggestiv/scientific/well done/?

Sorin

[Attila]

Very good question ! I guess proper distance what is lens designed for. For wide angle infinity, 75-100mm 2-3 m etc.

[Orio]

[LucisPictor]

Exactly, Orio!

That is why I make up lists only after I have "tested" the lenses with different focal settings. It also depends on which lens I want to test.
Normally, I shoot something pretty close, so that the lens just can focus, then an object in apposite distance, i.e. a distance you would "normally" use the lens for and I always shoot with infinity setting (mostly just to check...).

The thing is that I often don't keep all the shots, but I get an impression of the lens.

But, of course, my tests are neither scientific nor objective. It is always my personal opinion. I can't do scientific tests, since I do not have the equipment to do that and I'm not paid for that. Really scientific tests are a lot of work!

"...(for instance the Jupiter-37 has a printed value of 30mt before the infinity symbol)."

This is also a matter of the construction of the lens' internal focus volution.
Some are kind of scarped and fast, others are rather flat and slow.
The steeper (and the faster) the more difficult is it to focus precisely, but the easier is it to go through the whole focus settings quickly.

Carsten

[Paul]

When I'm doing my personal lens tests I make them at 2 different distances.
1. "book-shelf"-distance (about 2-3 m)
2. near infinity (over 20/30 m)

1. is good for identical artificial light condition (whereas outside they can differ during the shooting)

I weigh the results for the distance I'm using this type of lens most of the time.
Esp. long focal lenghts (over 135/200mm) don't make really sense at close distances....

As for the question for german/italian(hungarian forums:
I don't think that we are so many and have too much traffic in our forum that we need to split.

[Attila]

Last time I tested Asahi Pentax 85mm f/1.8 P/K this lens designed for portraits and perform very well. In close up distance lens quality is below average. I also took some shoot for infinity, result is total crap. This is the reason why I said best for test in designed focal length.

@Paul: We split this forum to different language, because not every body can talk in English. They like to use their mother language and many of them doesn't speak English at all.

[LucisPictor]

Lists updated...

[carpediem007]

[Attila]

Welcome on board Michael! Please share some pictures with us from the lens and some taken with this lens. Many thanks!

[carpediem007]

Hello Attila...

Thanks for the welcome

I'll try to take some pictures "for publication" during the weekend. Should be back by Monday night...

Cheers,
Michael

[LucisPictor]

Hi, Michael!

Yes, please show us some pics!
I haven't seen another copy of this lens anywhere and it's such a great glass!

Welcome to this forum! You will surely enjoy it here!