View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:30 pm Post subject: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Contax Planar turned up, yay!
I have decided to pitch it up against the young Samyang contender, to see if twice the price means twice the performance. Obviously it's dark, and cold, so I can't do any outside tests today. However, that doesn't stop me doing a quick indoor test to kick the thread off.
Edit: The first indoor monkey test was performed on a Canon EOS 5D classic at the same shutter speeds in the same position on a tripod @ ISO 100 on 10 second self timer mode.
Wide open @ f1.4
Planar
Samyang
My first immediate conclusion is that the focal length of the Planar is actually longer than that of the Samyang!
Detail test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
Looks like I focused ever so slightly forward with the Samyang (easy to do @ f1.4). Looking at the knitting under the eyes, I'd say the Planar has a bit more detail.
Bokeh test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
The Samyang looks smoother and therefore less distracting here.
Conclusion
It's very close really isn't it? The Planar gives a slightly more detailed image, but the Samyang has a more pleasing background (IMHO). _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g
Last edited by ManualFocus-G on Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I see no difference, without doubt Samyang is best buy nowadays. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Same test @ f2
Planar
Samyang
Detail test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
Hmm, this time the Samyang is a little back focused by the look of things, so difficult to use this as a real test. I *think* I prefer the Planar shot.
Bokeh test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
Those AE ninja blades make an appearance! Pretty cool, but a bit more distracting that the Samyang's highlights. And I've just realised that I'm talking about highlights here and not bokeh in general. The outdoors tests will show us that!
Conclusion
I'm confused. _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
Dear Graham!!
First of all -- you chose the wrong subject ! lol
The right one is blurred on the background and I would say there is some vodka in it!
seriously -- it's quite interesting to see both -- I mean both great lenses - against each other
I can not judge the Samyang as I have not had any chance to try it but you'll be definitely satisfied with the Planar - especially against strong light..
and longer distances
and with the 3D
and .. well except ninjas but that was the last thing which bothered me ..
The comparison is very good
Thanks for sharing these pictures
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NikonD
Joined: 29 Jul 2008 Posts: 1922 Location: Slovenija
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NikonD wrote:
I've had Samyang and it's a great lens for a great price! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Here we go @ f2.8 and let's invite the Sonnar 85/2.8 into the party!
Planar
Samyang
Sonnar
Detail test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
Sonnar
Yep, this test is impossible! The Planar seems to be the most accurate to focus though, followed by the Sonnar. Bear in mind I refocused at each stop to ensure that any focus shift was taken into account.
Bokeh test - 100% crop
Planar
Samyang
Sonnar
The ninjas are still at it! The Sonnar bokeh is more contrasty. I'm a sucker for Sonnars, so I'll be interested to see what happens outside!
Conclusion
Indoor tests are rubbish. _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Sorry it's not a brilliant test, but I will update the thread with real world usage...I promise!
Stan...you're correct! Next test will be vodka outside with a nice foresty background I already love the Planar...I'm pretty sure it's not a snob thing - the lens just feels heavy and well made
NikonD and Attila - the Samyang continues to astound me! It's just such good value and has such smooth bokeh.
The Sonnar has always impressed me. I love Sonnars _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aleksanderpolo
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aleksanderpolo wrote:
ooo~~~ I love that sonnar, are you by any chance selling it?
Planar does have more overall presence than Samyang, even though the Samyang is pretty good itself.
By the way, if you look at the image with one eye closed... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nixland
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 Posts: 577
Expire: 2012-07-29
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
nixland wrote:
Wow, very very interesting test. Thanks for sharing.
I am very curious about this Samyang lens, specially for the buttery bokeh. And you have proved it.
I already have Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 & 85/2.8 and I like them all. For the bokeh I prefer my Leica 90/2.
Please do test outside to compare the microcontrast & 3D look, flare & CA. I have read the review on lenstip.com, but I need more field test proof. I'll be waiting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 4809 Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go
with the cheapest lens. The Samyang is quite an excellent performer
in any case, even while I realize this isn't a scientific test. But...I still
have a feeling one would never be wrong to buy a Samyang OR the
others. A real close call that would not be a factor for me at this point; I
would go with the Samyang all the way from a money point of view. _________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jun
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 Posts: 54 Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
jun wrote:
so i guess this is a sort of mythbuster episode.
zeiss optics are good but it is NOT that good when price factor kick in.
if price is 2x or 3x that of a samyang then it should at least offer much better or sharper image quality.
also i do not buy that the test has to be outdoors. indoor or outdoor, nigh or day you should see the difference between 2 lens under all conditions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aleksanderpolo
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
aleksanderpolo wrote:
jun wrote: |
so i guess this is a sort of mythbuster episode.
zeiss optics are good but it is NOT that good when price factor kick in.
if price is 2x or 3x that of a samyang then it should at least offer much better or sharper image quality.
also i do not buy that the test has to be outdoors. indoor or outdoor, nigh or day you should see the difference between 2 lens under all conditions. |
Not really, in complete darkness you cannot see any difference between any two lens. So I am eagerly waiting for more comparison in other lighting condition. Zeiss shines in lighting condition that enable its 3D drawing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008 Posts: 416 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
Conclusion
Indoor tests are rubbish. |
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
Sorry it's not a brilliant test, but I will update the thread with real world usage...I promise!
Stan...you're correct! Next test will be vodka outside with a nice foresty background I already love the Planar...I'm pretty sure it's not a snob thing - the lens just feels heavy and well made
NikonD and Attila - the Samyang continues to astound me! It's just such good value and has such smooth bokeh.
The Sonnar has always impressed me. I love Sonnars |
As a bokeh guy, I can assure you, I LOVE the Planar, yet find the Samyang as boring as most other new, MTF driven lenses in that regard. The Planar according to Zeiss' own charts is not hard to defeat strictly on MTF these days - it's the character that's hard to replicate.
So many times these tests come back to this, yet I too am guilty of looking under the skirt of a lens in this way. She's pretty, leave it alone, haha.
A reminder of my own test of the C/Y vs the ZA, which was noted as similar in the bokeh dept to the Samyang -
http://forum.mflenses.com/contax-planar-and-sony-planar-a-comparison-of-bokeh-t25978.html
K. _________________ kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Sorry, but
1) comparing a lens from the 1960s to a lens from the 2010s
2) in a setup which won't show much difference
3) using a body which can't draw as much detail as the lens
4) on a system one of the lenses originally was not calibrated for
If it makes you even happier about the Samyang then I guess the test did what you wanted it to do, but I wouldn't draw any deeper conclusions as this can't exactly be called academically validated methods.
No doubt the Samyang is excellent value for money, and likely will remain so even compared to the modern ZE Planar T* 85/1.4 (which, contrary to the Contax version, is designed for the system you tested the lenses with). Like always with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double or triple the price. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Esox lucius, you sound very defensive I have no agenda here, and have already stated that this first test is very basic.
As to whether I should be comparing a lens from the 80s to a lens made 30 years later on digital, why not? Fair or not, I want to see what works best on my 5D! _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
Esox lucius, you sound very defensive |
Defensive? That's weird, because I don't own a Contax lens or body, have never owned a Samyang lens, nor do I presently own or use Canon DSLRs - I have nothing to defend here.
I wrote my opinion, which still is: if you do these "head to head" comparisons, people will treat them as tests whether you intended it or not. I think it is a waste of time and misleading to use methods that will produce results which can't be scientifically or even academically validated.
I agree it is important to know how a lens performs on the DSLR you use, but you should be careful to draw conclusions of what is better and what not, when you use test methods that are not exactly waterproof. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I think the topic of scientific v perception based testing has been done to death, and I don't intend to start that one again. I simply take photos myself and rely upon what I see as my results. Sorry if you don't agree with me doing this, but I will continue nonetheless, and others will have the choice of looking at my comparisons or looking ay mtf results or looking at other people's results or even their own to draw a conclusion. _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
I think the topic of scientific v perception based testing has been done to death, and I don't intend to start that one again. I simply take photos myself and rely upon what I see as my results. Sorry if you don't agree with me doing this, but I will continue nonetheless, and others will have the choice of looking at my comparisons or looking ay mtf results or looking at other people's results or even their own to draw a conclusion. |
...........umpteen tests and at the end of the day it's what a pair of human eyes likes and sees _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
aleksanderpolo wrote: |
ooo~~~ I love that sonnar, are you by any chance selling it? |
Haha, we'll see It's tiny and great fun to use I know of a cheap one in the UK if you are after one...
aleksanderpolo wrote: |
By the way, if you look at the image with one eye closed... |
Woah! 3D monkey!
nixland wrote: |
I already have Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 & 85/2.8 and I like them all. For the bokeh I prefer my Leica 90/2.
Please do test outside to compare the microcontrast & 3D look, flare & CA. I have read the review on lenstip.com, but I need more field test proof. I'll be waiting. |
You have some SERIOUS gear! I totally agree, outside and real life shots are needed too. The sun still hasn't come out today though Typical!
Laurence, Jun - whatever my test shots will show over the next few weeks, the Samyang is still without a doubt a great lens. I have used it for baby portraits and it renders really great images with lovely buttery, smooth bokeh.
Kelly - you've nailed what I'm looking for...character. My Canon EF 50/1.8 II beats the pants off my Planar 50/1.4 at the close range test chart challenge. But in real life shoots, the Planar has the pop, amkeing my images look more exciting (to me) and is way better at infinity.
Esox lucius - sorry if I sounded grumpy this morning, I didn't mean to sound rude _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
Esox lucius wrote: |
1) comparing a lens from the 1960s to a lens from the 2010s
…
4) on a system one of the lenses originally was not calibrated for
|
I don't get these points: one lens being older or made for a different system may be an explanation for lower than expected performance (if such occurs) but it's still a perfectly valid comparison from the point of view of someone who lives in the 2010's (without a time machine) and uses the system that they do.
(As for the other points I agree that this particular comparison is not good for establishing any kind of deeper understanding of the performance of these lenses. But the bokeh differences are interesting to see, even though limited to this one scene, so I don't mind seeing posts like this… =) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChromaticAberration
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 819 Location: Portugal
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChromaticAberration wrote:
Laurence wrote: |
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go with the cheapest lens. |
Most reasonably good lenses have such little difference that at the end of the day most of us choose one over another for all the wrong reasons (brand status for example) and not based on what matters.
I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand". _________________ Body: Fujifilm X-E1
Landscapes: Samyang 12mm f/2 NCS CS
Macro: Vivitar Series 1 105mm Æ’/2.5
Portrait: Helios-44 58mm Æ’/2.0
Low-light: SMC Takumar 50mm Æ’/1.4
_________________
Marketplace feedback
_________________
a pнoтograpн ιѕ neιтнer тaĸen or ѕeιzed вy ғorce. ιт oғғerѕ ιтѕelғ υp. ιт ιѕ тнe pнoтo тнaт тaĸeѕ yoυ. one мυѕт noт тaĸe pнoтoѕ.†– нenrι carтιer-вreѕѕon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
ChromaticAberration wrote: |
I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand". |
Well...for example...when properly focused, I can always distinguish between my APO-Telyt 180 and over twenty 180-200mm primes and ~200mm zooms i've tried (except APO Lanthar 180). But sometimes It's necessary to go to 100%.
Yes, 50mm primes stopped down to f5.6 is another story... _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Arkku: This is nollatutkimusta, Finnish for 0-value research; a waste of time. You are free to like what you want, just as I am free to express my opinion about "comparisons" which I find useless, because of uncomparable methodology producing biased results.
In addition to already mentioned issues, none of the samples show comparable focus. Furthermore, all photos are exposed with Auto White Balance (most likely in flickering 60Hz indoor light), further reducing comparability between frames. On top of it, you are using 8-bit compressed files on modest screens, to evaluate results? It's like comparing instrument sounds based on a 128 kbps MP3 file
No matter if this was intended as a "real" comparison or not, the way it is presented will lead to it being treated as such - a comparison. If you can't stand objective arguments which question the data sampling methods, then you should refrain from doing or publishing these kind of comparisons.
This is like a test drive on gravel, involving a Westfield SEiW and a Lotus 7. A complete waste of time, with predictable, subjective findings.
Undoubtedly the Samyang gives better value for money, because in 99.9% of cases the last 20% of performance will double the lens price. But please... don't call it better because even with unfair comparison, it does not look better. And please refrain from using pseudo-scientific Rockwell methodology to prove opinions based on your beliefs/intents, as opposed to scientifically validated facts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aleksanderpolo
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aleksanderpolo wrote:
ChromaticAberration wrote: |
Laurence wrote: |
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go with the cheapest lens. |
Most reasonably good lenses have such little difference that at the end of the day most of us choose one over another for all the wrong reasons (brand status for example) and not based on what matters.
I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand". |
See this test on FM forum:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0
Result: Most people can tell the difference between a Zeiss and Canon in a blind test. In adverse lighting condition, the difference between a MP 100 and a Canon is small, but when lighting is right and the subject has proper texture, the difference is night and day. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
I don't think your test is worthless, Graham. It was educative to see the difference in bokeh and bokeh CA and drawing of detail. The Planar is in fact a bit sharper at f/1.4 than I expected -- it's often said that it has some glow/softness wide open at close distance.
Unlike Exos Lucius suggests, I'm not taking your thread to be an absolute judgment about which lens is best. It's just an addition to the samples of these lenses that show how they behave in different situations. They may not be 100% reliable data points but I don't think the results would be vastly different if you would have performed them with scientific rigor. Others often don't even manage to match exposures and use a fixed the white balance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|