| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:08 am Post subject: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7 |
 |
|
memetph wrote:
I bought a CZ Sonnar 85mm 2.8 ( QBM) for 90 euros some months ago and recently a used CZ Batis 85mm 1.8 for 1000 euros.
A bokeh comparison : same settings ( WB, sharpness 50 LR) except +9 clarity +9 vibrance and +6 vignette for the QBM at 2.8.
You can see the swirling bobeh of the QBM at 2.8.
Regarding sharpness the lenses seem equal at f4 and the QBM at 2.8 is more or less on par with the Batis at 1.8.
The Batis has a pincushion distortion which is noticable.
Usually I make portraitures of my wife but the Talisker bottle is more patient than she is.
Batis 1.8
Batis 2.8
QBM 2.8
Batis 4
[/url]
QBM 4
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3693
Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Nice comparison. QBM rulz it 
_________________
---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
 QBM Sonnar is one of the best lens in my experience, I don't think so anybody can make better lens.
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
| Attila wrote: |
| QBM Sonnar is one of the best lens in my experience, I don't think so anybody can make better lens. |
Yes it is a wonderful little lens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dan_
Joined: 05 Dec 2012
Posts: 1052
Location: Romania
Expire: 2016-12-19
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dan_ wrote:
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
| dan_ wrote: |
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis. |
The camera was held and I used AF with the Batis. You might be right so I'll test it again tomorrow.
The goal was to compare the bokeh as those lenses are sharp enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dan_
Joined: 05 Dec 2012
Posts: 1052
Location: Romania
Expire: 2016-12-19
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dan_ wrote:
If the Bokeh is compared, to my eyes Batis looks a bit smoother till f/4. At f/4 the QBM looks smoother.
Probably Batis is a bit sharper at all apertures but a greater pixel count should be necessary to clearly spot the differences.
To my surprise the color looks quite similar for both lenses. I expected a greater difference in color (with QBM being warmer and a bit more saturated) but, probably, it is not so obvious in this light.
The QBM keeps its own very well on an A7, that's for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
| dan_ wrote: |
If the Bokeh is compared, to my eyes Batis looks a bit smoother till f/4. At f/4 the QBM looks smoother.
Probably Batis is a bit sharper at all apertures but a greater pixel count should be necessary to clearly spot the differences.
To my surprise the color looks quite similar for both lenses. I expected a greater difference in color (with QBM being warmer and a bit more saturated) but, probably, it is not so obvious in this light.
The QBM keeps its own very well on an A7, that's for sure. |
Teh QBM is really sharp and contrasty. It gives also a nice rendition of skins.
I agree with your comments regarding the bokeh of those lenses.
Today I tested the Batis at f4 again, it is very sharp . There was a problem on my yesterday's shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| memetph wrote: |
| dan_ wrote: |
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis. |
The camera was held and I used AF with the Batis. You might be right so I'll test it again tomorrow.
The goal was to compare the bokeh as those lenses are sharp enough. |
I noticed right from the beginning that this "test" was not made as it should.
I know you can do it better!!
Greez  Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
[quote="stevemark"][quote="memetph"]
| dan_ wrote: |
I know you can do it better!!
Greez Stephan |
Merci vielmals .
Gruezi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
[quote="memetph"][quote="stevemark"]
| memetph wrote: |
| dan_ wrote: |
I know you can do it better!!
Greez Stephan |
Merci vielmals .
Gruezi |
Please don't take it as an offense - i've been writing it with a broad smile on my face
But, hélas, these lenses (and todays sensors!!) are so good that differences between them are to be found reliably only if one works really carefully. Even then, the adapters make my frown very often; I really suspect them to cause some irregularities when testing MF lenses. But that's another topic ....
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
[quote="stevemark"][quote="memetph"]
| stevemark wrote: |
| memetph wrote: |
| dan_ wrote: |
I know you can do it better!!
Greez Stephan |
Merci vielmals .
Gruezi |
Please don't take it as an offense - i've been writing it with a broad smile on my face
But, hélas, these lenses (and todays sensors!!) are so good that differences between them are to be found reliably only if one works really carefully. Even then, the adapters make my frown very often; I really suspect them to cause some irregularities when testing MF lenses. But that's another topic ....
Stephan |
It was humour from my side ....I wanted to improvise some schwietzerduetsch for you !  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichA
Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7 |
|
|
RichA wrote:
[quote="memetph"]I bought a CZ Sonnar 85mm 2.8 ( QBM) for 90 euros some months ago and recently a used CZ Batis 85mm 1.8 for 1000 euros.
A bokeh comparison : same settings ( WB, sharpness 50 LR) except +9 clarity +9 vibrance and +6 vignette for the QBM at 2.8.
You can see the swirling bobeh of the QBM at 2.8.
Regarding sharpness the lenses seem equal at f4 and the QBM at 2.8 is more or less on par with the Batis at 1.8.
[The Batis has a pincushion distortion which is noticable.
Usually I make portraitures of my wife but the Talisker bottle is more patient than she is.]
Outer field bokeh on the QBM is "active" versus the Batis. Gives the image some dynamic appeal, IMO. |
|
| 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
