Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Comparison 5x 135mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:17 am    Post subject: Comparison 5x 135mm Reply with quote
Contenders:
S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 (v2)
Hexanon 135mm f/3.2
Mamiya SX 135mm f/2.8
Topcor RE 135mm f/3.5
Nikkor Ai 135mm f/2.8

@ f/2.8 (and f/3.2) comparison:


@ f/4 comparison:


@ f/5.6 comparison:


In this particular test, I think the Mamiya wins at f/2.8 and f/4. At f/5.6, the Hexanon is maybe slightly better.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for these.
The Mamiya SX is a standout in these isn't it.
I like the Takumar and the Nikkor for bokeh.
T Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
Thank you for these.
The Mamiya SX is a standout in these isn't it.
I like the Takumar and the Nikkor for bokeh.
T Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


Agreed.
The Mamiya SX is an impressive lens.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree. The mamiya SX is a very good 135 mm lens.
I have it and the rendering of mine is similar.
The takumar colours are great.

Thanks for sharing


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very well done test imho -- every lens focused almost exactly same spot (check bokeh), even exposures, what's not to like? Smile

Mamiya SX sharpest, no doubt!

Yes, Takumar has best colors. Mamiya and Nikkor like reds...


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Honestly, I can't see much difference between the lenses. What I noticed was a difference in exposure, which makes it difficult to evaluate the results. For example, in the photo taken with SMC Takumar at F2.5 the highlights are slightly overexposed when compared to the photo taken with the Mamiya at F2.8. In addition, the focus with SMC Takumar is on a different plane (back) compared to Mamiya's focus.

To show the importance of exposure for a correct comparison, I took the liberty of slightly changing the exposure of the cropped part of the photo taken with the SMC Takumar at F2.5. For the other lenses, I kept the original exposure. See the result:



In my assessment, the slightly altered exposure was enough for the photo taken with SMC Takumar to show more details than all the others!


Another important point, but that I will not discuss it now, is that center crops are not very useful to show differences in lens performance. Differences in performance are more evident for points off center.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Honestly, I can't see much difference between the lenses. What I noticed was a difference in exposure, which makes it difficult to evaluate the results. For example, in the photo taken with SMC Takumar at F2.5 the highlights are slightly overexposed when compared to the photo taken with the Mamiya at F2.8. In addition, the focus with SMC Takumar is on a different plane (back) compared to Mamiya's focus.

To show the importance of exposure for a correct comparison, I took the liberty of slightly changing the exposure of the cropped part of the photo taken with the SMC Takumar at F2.5. For the other lenses, I kept the original exposure. See the result:



In my assessment, the slightly altered exposure was enough for the photo taken with SMC Takumar to show more details than all the others!


Another important point, but that I will not discuss it now, is that center crops are not very useful to show differences in lens performance. Differences in performance are more evident for points off center.


At center is important too. Not all the lenses performance Equal at center.

Said that. Mamiya is sharper to my eyes and takumar very nice colours


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Honestly, I can't see much difference between the lenses. What I noticed was a difference in exposure, which makes it difficult to evaluate the results. For example, in the photo taken with SMC Takumar at F2.5 the highlights are slightly overexposed when compared to the photo taken with the Mamiya at F2.8. In addition, the focus with SMC Takumar is on a different plane (back) compared to Mamiya's focus.

To show the importance of exposure for a correct comparison, I took the liberty of slightly changing the exposure of the cropped part of the photo taken with the SMC Takumar at F2.5. For the other lenses, I kept the original exposure. See the result:



In my assessment, the slightly altered exposure was enough for the photo taken with SMC Takumar to show more details than all the others!


Another important point, but that I will not discuss it now, is that center crops are not very useful to show differences in lens performance. Differences in performance are more evident for points off center.


Good point, i will take more care of exposure next time.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
At center is important too. Not all the lenses performance Equal at center.


Certainly in many photos, the center is the most important part of the image. However, testing the lenses only for the center is generally a waste of time because in most cases the difference in performance at the center is small or non-existent, especially for lenses of the same category.

Why is the performance difference in the center generally small? The reason is purely technical and it is called correction of aberrations. The lens designers try hard to cancel the aberrations of the individual lenses between themselves, and when they achieve success (which is always relative) it is said that the lens is "corrected".

An individual lens suffers from 7 basic aberrations:
1. Spherical Aberration
2. Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (loCA)
3. Astigmatism
4. Coma
5. Distortion
6. Field Curvature
7. Lateral Chromatic Aberration (laCA)

In the center of the image, only the first two aberrations are present: spherical and loCA. Therefore, correcting the aberrations in the center is relatively simple. The real problem is correcting off-axis aberrations. Historically, the most complicated aberration to correct was astigmatism, that is why the first lenses that could reasonably correct all aberrations, including astigmatism, were called anastigmatics. Cooke's triplet was the first lens to correct all aberrations, including those off-axis.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can we please stop all this aberrations in the corners nonsense, it's a complete and total waste of time and is of next to no use in assessing the ability of a lens to produce good images that are aesthetically pleasing.

The proper way to assess any lens is to look at the images it produces as a whole, not to obsess about minutiae.

The colours, the tonality, the bokeh, the overall character of the image, that is what counts, the technical qualities are very secondary; as long as it's sharp enough and the CA and other aberrations aren't so apparent as to be obtrusive, then the lens is good enough.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
papasito wrote:
At center is important too. Not all the lenses performance Equal at center.


Certainly in many photos, the center is the most important part of the image. However, testing the lenses only for the center is generally a waste of time because in most cases the difference in performance at the center is small or non-existent, especially for lenses of the same category.

Why is the performance difference in the center generally small? The reason is purely technical and it is called correction of aberrations. The lens designers try hard to cancel the aberrations of the individual lenses between themselves, and when they achieve success (which is always relative) it is said that the lens is "corrected".

An individual lens suffers from 7 basic aberrations:
1. Spherical Aberration
2. Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (loCA)
3. Astigmatism
4. Coma
5. Distortion
6. Field Curvature
7. Lateral Chromatic Aberration (laCA)

In the center of the image, only the first two aberrations are present: spherical and loCA. Therefore, correcting the aberrations in the center is relatively simple. The real problem is correcting off-axis aberrations. Historically, the most complicated aberration to correct was astigmatism, that is why the first lenses that could reasonably correct all aberrations, including astigmatism, were called anastigmatics. Cooke's triplet was the first lens to correct all aberrations, including those off-axis.


Thank you, very much.
Although all of that is well known, I like to see central images tests.
And 2/3 and corners tests too. But about the center of the images is the test class that i hope to find


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Any of you did test the apo telezenitar 135/2,8 and compared it with the mamiya SX or the takumar 135/2,5?


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I re-exposed the RAW files in order to bring back detail inside the flower. There are slight differences in focus between some lenses, but you can still see where the image is at its sharpest.

@ f/2.8 (and f/3.2):



The Takumars focus is a little behind the other images. It actually shows a good amount of detail, but not at the same level as the Mamiya SX. The Hexanon 135/3.2 at f/3.2 gives the softest image. The Nikkor not bad, but not at Mamiya level.

@ f/4:



I think the Mamiya still has a slight edge over the other lenses. Second place Nikkor? If so, only by a slight margin. The Hexanon improved at lot at this aperture.

@ f/5.6



Very hard to tell. The Hexanon?

BTW, I know this is a very limited test. For instance, in real life, under less favorable light conditions, I find the Takumar's results often nicer (colors, contrast) than the Mamiya's. Same counts for the Nikkor.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Takumar doesn't seem to improve at all. Maybe because the focus is a bit further back? Are you sure the A/M switch was on manual? I often inadvertently shift it to auto so I think stop down but I don't.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
The Takumar doesn't seem to improve at all. Maybe because the focus is a bit further back? Are you sure the A/M switch was on manual? I often inadvertently shift it to auto so I think stop down but I don't.


Yes, happens to me also sometimes. But in this case Bokeh is changing with f stops.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

Certainly in many photos, the center is the most important part of the image. However, testing the lenses only for the center is generally a waste of time because in most cases the difference in performance at the center is small or non-existent, especially for lenses of the same category.

Why is the performance difference in the center generally small? The reason is purely technical and it is called correction of aberrations. The lens designers try hard to cancel the aberrations of the individual lenses between themselves, and when they achieve success (which is always relative) it is said that the lens is "corrected".

An individual lens suffers from 7 basic aberrations:
1. Spherical Aberration
2. Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (loCA)
3. Astigmatism
4. Coma
5. Distortion
6. Field Curvature
7. Lateral Chromatic Aberration (laCA)

In the center of the image, only the first two aberrations are present: spherical and loCA. Therefore, correcting the aberrations in the center is relatively simple. The real problem is correcting off-axis aberrations. Historically, the most complicated aberration to correct was astigmatism, that is why the first lenses that could reasonably correct all aberrations, including astigmatism, were called anastigmatics. Cooke's triplet was the first lens to correct all aberrations, including those off-axis.


This was informative, thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you! Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So if I can't afford the Mamiya or even the Tak I should get the Nikkor. Smile

Oops, I declared the first test great but I did only look at the f/2.8 comparison, which imho is great.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
So if I can't afford the Mamiya or even the Tak I should get the Nikkor. Smile

Oops, I declared the first test great but I did only look at the f/2.8 comparison, which imho is great.


AFAIK, the old Nikkor 135/3,5 should be sharper with more contrast than the very good F/2,8 version-


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
So if I can't afford the Mamiya or even the Tak I should get the Nikkor. Smile

Oops, I declared the first test great but I did only look at the f/2.8 comparison, which imho is great.


This test doesn’t tell the whole story. My conclusions untill now:

Takumar: superior build quality; a true joy to handle, consistent great colors and contrast, but quite some aberrations in certain conditions. Seperate metal hood inconvenient.

Topcor: too little experience with it to draw a conclusion, but it seems pretty good. Nice colors, scharp, build quality pretty good. Integrated hood.

Mamiya SX: very sharp, good contrast when the light is good. Build quality very good actually (not as good as Takumar though). Colors dull when light is sub optimal (on cloudy days for example).

Hexanon: great sharpness, colors and contrast when stopped down, close focus ability. Build quality the least of the five. Compact, integrated hood.

Nikkor: great build quality but second to Takumar. Very sharp and contrasty when stopped down a little. Deals best with difficult lighting. Integrated hood, compact.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found the Mamiya at f/2,8 to be more resistence to flare than the apo telezenitar MC wide open, and more sharp too.

The Mamiya does not increase in sharpness from f/2,8 closing to f/5,6.

At f/5,6 the russian 135 mm lens has more sharpness and contrast than the Mamiya

My copy of Mamiya SX wide open seems to be more sharp and with more contrast than closing to f/4 and f/5,6


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I found the Mamiya at f/2,8 to be more resistence to flare than the apo telezenitar MC wide open, and more sharp too.

The Mamiya does not increase in sharpness from f/2,8 closing to f/5,6.

At f/5,6 the russian 135 mm lens has more sharpness and contrast than the Mamiya

My copy of Mamiya SX wide open seems to be more sharp and with more contrast than closing to f/4 and f/5,6


How do SX aberrations compare to APO telezenitar?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've been messing around with very old lenses for so long, the sharpness of these almost burned my eyes out.

Very well presented, sir Like 1

The Takumar has a nice Bokeh, the Hexanon is sharp.

Which lens represented the scene most accurately, in your opinion Caspert?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
papasito wrote:
I found the Mamiya at f/2,8 to be more resistence to flare than the apo telezenitar MC wide open, and more sharp too.

The Mamiya does not increase in sharpness from f/2,8 closing to f/5,6.

At f/5,6 the russian 135 mm lens has more sharpness and contrast than the Mamiya

My copy of Mamiya SX wide open seems to be more sharp and with more contrast than closing to f/4 and f/5,6


How do SX aberrations compare to APO telezenitar?



1- My copy of the Apo Telezenitar is not really an APO lens (like the Apo Telyt R 180/3,4). Said that, it's very well corrected for CA-

2- My copy of Mamioya SX wide open has better rendering in all aspects (CA included)

3- From F/5,6 the russian lens has more sharpness and contrast with better corrections for CA-

My copy of Mamiya SX seems to be hard to beat wide open. But the rendering does not increase stopping down the aperture. Perhaps only a bit marginally at f/3,5-4


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
papasito wrote:
I found the Mamiya at f/2,8 to be more resistence to flare than the apo telezenitar MC wide open, and more sharp too.

The Mamiya does not increase in sharpness from f/2,8 closing to f/5,6.

At f/5,6 the russian 135 mm lens has more sharpness and contrast than the Mamiya

My copy of Mamiya SX wide open seems to be more sharp and with more contrast than closing to f/4 and f/5,6


How do SX aberrations compare to APO telezenitar?



1- My copy of the Apo Telezenitar is not really an APO lens (like the Apo Telyt R 180/3,4). Said that, it's very well corrected for CA-

2- My copy of Mamioya SX wide open has better rendering in all aspects (CA included)

3- From F/5,6 the russian lens has more sharpness and contrast with better corrections for CA-

My copy of Mamiya SX seems to be hard to beat wide open. But the rendering does not increase stopping down the aperture. Perhaps only a bit marginally at f/3,5-4


Interesting. I received a Telezenitar (non apo) 135/2.8 a while ago from Ebay, which is apparently also very good. Unfortunately I had to send it back since it had aperture problems.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2