Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tomorrow i am going to antique bazaar there are a lot of len
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Sorry. "This" site is mflenses.com. "That" site would be http://www.tomioka.de. Surely you can understand my indignation.


OK, understand. My English isn't perfect. Sorry for confusion.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did a google search for that "German Color Foto Test 1980" that tb_a refers to. I'm curious, did it include any Canon lenses? I have a Canon FL 55/1.2 and a Canon FD 55/1.2. I know that the FL 55/1.2 has the same optical formula as the early chrome-nose Canon FD 55/1.2. But its coatings are probably different. I don't know, however, if the early FD 55/1.2 has the same optical formula as mine, which is the later SSC breechlock (non aspherical) model.

Both lenses give good photos wide open at f/1.2 and chromatic aberrations are well controlled.

FL 55mm wide open at f/1.2. 100% crop. No PP except reduction for posting here. Camera was a 10.1 mp Canon XS DSLR.


FL 55mm wide open at f/1.2. Scan of a film image, Fuji Superia 400, scanned with my Epson 4990. I did some contrast adjustment to this one and, of course, resized it for posting here.


FD 55mm wide open at f/1.2. NEX 7, ISO 100. No PP, resize only.



PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
I did a google search for that "German Color Foto Test 1980" that tb_a refers to. I'm curious, did it include any Canon lenses?


Although I know almost nothing about Canon lenses as I never had one myself, I can certainly help you further.

The test included 2 Canon lenses, the cheaper "FD SSC" and the more expensive "FD SSC AL" both 55mm/F1.2 lenses. Don't ask me about "breechlock" models. Obviously the AL is the aspherical one and the cheaper one the non-apsherical lens.

The good news: In terms of center sharpness fully open the "AL" was second best after the Pentax lens and the cheaper one was third. However, in corner sharpness WO both were rather mediocre only, i.e. below the Nikkor, Minolta MD and Pentax lenses.

In the free text they mention that both Canon lenses show high resolution in the center and that in practice they would perform equally.

Stopped down as from F4 both Canon lenses were like the Pentax one "absolute top level"; i.e. equally best of all incl. corners.

I only have this test on paper and in German. Sorry.

BTW, it might also be interesting to know that the most expensive Nikon Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 lens was in every aspect inferior to the much cheaper Nikkor 50/1.2. At least I consider this as slightly amusing. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In regards to the "German Color Foto Test 1980"... I remember reading an old thread on this forum where it was agreed that the testers of the day had received a bad copy of the Konica 57mm f1.2. It measured far more worse than seen in practice.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RnR wrote:
In regards to the "German Color Foto Test 1980"... I remember reading an old thread on this forum where it was agreed that the testers of the day had received a bad copy of the Konica 57mm f1.2. It measured far more worse than seen in practice.


I don't know as a bad copy would be bad at all apertures whilst in this test at smaller apertures from F4 onwards it wasn't that bad. At least better than some others. The question is also what the real difference between the best and the worst in real practice would look like; i.e. a real life comparison would most probably say more than just looking to some charts or ratings.

When I compared my older Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 (which is said to be slightly worse than the MD 50/1.2 from that test) with my Pentax 50/1.2 (which should be the better lens) I didn't realize that when looking at the final pictures. To the contrary, I felt that the Rokkor had slightly higher contrast in the center of the image wide open. Therefore the Rokkor picture was looking like the "sharper" one, at least for my eyes.

Maybe there are some sample variations or there is some difference from the measured figures to the real world, seen by the individual eyes. Hard to say as I don't really plan to buy another expensive super fast lens just to compare it myself, particularly because I don't really need that fast lenses at all as their disadvantages prevail in normal photography.

From my experience also from my own comparison tests which I published here I can say that what is looking best for me is not necessarily looking best for somebody else. That's also quite interesting as it supports the theory that each individual's brain (which is finally responsible for the final picture composed from the information coming from our eyes) is working somehow differently. Wink