| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: Zebra sonnar test images |
 |
|
PaulC wrote:
Here are a couple of 100% "pixel peeping" crops from a single-coated Sonnar 135 f3.5 "zebra" lens mounted on a Canon 5D.
I think they were both shot at f3.5 (and ISO 100). The lens has fairly low contrast so care needs to be taken not to make it worse with flare.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Nice shots.
The second doesn't seem to me as low contrast, but normal contrast.
This normal contrast likes me more than the great contrast of my sonnar MC copy.
You did the first with tripod?
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
Thanks for showing us! Can you also show the resized originals? Just to get an idea of the whole picture.
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
Rino - they are both hand-held, the buildings at 1/250 the flowers at 1/400. It might be a tiny bit sharper on a tripod.
Here are the files they are cropped from (standard 5D jpg settings, no adjustments):
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
A beauty, the two!!
I asked about the tripod because I can't handhelkd nothing. My pulse is bad.
But your handheld is very good.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onesurvive
Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Posts: 34
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
onesurvive wrote:
Looks good. I want one! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
| onesurvive wrote: |
| Looks good. I want one! |
The MC version is generally better - but this one only cost me $45.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
I think that sounds a bit weird. Here is one of my first images with that lens, handheld and mounted on a 350D. Looks sharp and nice colours and contrast to me?:
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Nothing wrong with Zebra, but surely performance is different on shorter distance than with infinity. Personally I love more Zebra than MC, I agree zebra has less contrast than MC in most cases.
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
And the zebra had a mechanism that open the aperture blades when you close focus to compensate the real aperture reduction in this situations.
The MC lost it.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
Mattias, the lighting conditions and exposure have a large effect on it. My building shot is very slightly over-exposed (the better exposed one had camera shake - it affects me, too, Rino!). Correcting the exposure a bit does increase the saturation and make it look more punchy, but it still isn't as contrasty as modern lens - and I think that is a general feature of single-coated lenses.
I wasn't suggesting that the lens is unsharp, it is very sharp and I think my samples are pretty sharp, too, though a tripod might have added a little bit to them. Remember you are seeing the originals at 72dpi. Your very nice portrait is reduced to a fifth of its original size and probably doesn't show more detail than my reduced-size version (where you can clearly see the cable from the end of the crane jib on the left).
There is nothing wrong with softer contrast. Technically it may be a result of optics not performing at their optimum but the way we handle the image once it hits the sensor or film, in order to bring it up to modern expectations, seems to me to exaggerate contrast and saturation in an unnatural way. That is something that appeals to our primate nature and we are used to seeing reality represented that way but what my eyes see, when I stop to think about it, seems rather "flatter" than the image that comes out of the printer. Or is that just me?
Anyway, here is that building picture with "auto levels", which helps the exposure but still shows lower contrast than a later lens.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
Good point, I have rarely used it at infinity, more closeup and "halfway" (can't think of a good word but I think you know what I mean  ).
I also like the stopping down button, but it takes some getting used to. At the beginning I often forgot to close the aperture and a lot of shots were therefore wideopen
Here I tried this singlecoated in to the morningsun at the swedish midsummers day, something I do sometimes just to see what happens 
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
Here is one with macroring (or is it called extensionring... ah, my english is a bit off this early in the day ), this have probably have contrast added in Photoshop though. If I remember correct it was very pale:
http://flickr.com/photos/mattiaswirf/2597478246/
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
| Prometheus wrote: |
Here is one with macroring (or is it called extensionring... ah, my english is a bit off this early in the day ), this have probably have contrast added in Photoshop though. If I remember correct it was very pale:
http://flickr.com/photos/mattiaswirf/2597478246/ |
Macro ring or extension tube - it's all the same.
That is a very nice photo, almost monochrome in green and making good use of contrast, depth of field and negative-space. Not many people would get all that in one shot. You are a very good photographer.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
