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

35mm lens comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Based on my shots and perhaps your experience which one is the winner in your eyes?
Leica Summicron-R 2/35
20%
 20%  [ 9 ]
CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35
38%
 38%  [ 17 ]
Steinheil Auto-D-Quinaron 2.8/35
6%
 6%  [ 3 ]
MIR-24N 2/35
6%
 6%  [ 3 ]
Asahi S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
25%
 25%  [ 11 ]
Porst WW 1.8/35
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Vivitar Auto 1.9/35
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 44



PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:58 pm    Post subject: 35mm lens comparison Reply with quote
Some time ago I did a test of several 35mm lenses: http://lucispictor.weebly.com/35mm-test.html

At that time I "only" had the 40D and could not test the lenses' corner performance on fullframe.

Since I now have the 5D, I decided to do a new test.
I had some very nice 35mm lenses:
- Leica Summicron-R 2/35
- Steinheil Auto-D-Quinaron 2.8/35
- MIR-24N 2/35
- Asahi S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35

And a friend of mine sent me some of his lenses for this comparison:
- CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35
- Porst WW 1.8/35
- Vivitar Auto 1.9/35

Of course, this test is by no means scientific but a very personal evaluation with a pretty subjective verdict as always when we "test" lenses. But it was fun to shoot with all these different lenses. Wink

Well, follow this link to see the photos and the result.
http://lucispictor.weebly.com/35mm-test-expanded.html


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice work! Comparisons like this one take a lot of time to set up. Smile

I personally prefer the Flektogon, its bokeh is the most appealing to me, and it's also pretty sharp and has nice colors. But I may be biased as I have a good copy and have always liked it a lot.

A pity you don't have the old Nikkor 35/2, as I'm very curios about it and would like to know how it compares to the others.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks like the Summicron wins below f/2.8 and the Flektogon at every other aperture + for close focusing distance.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know most lenses from above list , but a Flektogon 35mm can be very very good.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esoteric list of glass, with the exception of the Leica. Might try expanding it for a meaningful survey.

Last edited by james on Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have two of these lenses (Flek and Tak) plus the Mir if you count the 24M version. I like the colours from the Mir better, but the Flek's close focussing tips the scales. The Super-Tak is a good lens too but no particular strengths.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:58 pm    Post subject: Re: 35mm lens comparison Reply with quote
I like the way you've set them up for comaprison in a page. Is that using Frames? It works well.

JJ


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

The only lens i own from your list is the Flek 35/2.4 which, at least for me, is a truly great lens (at least on an APS-C like my K10D).
Besides the fact that i really like its "painting-like" bokeh, i discovered that it is a good performer at short distances, too, with the help of some extension rings (pictures coming soon) ... For me, it is the winner ...

Many thanks for sharing your tests, especially on your FF camera ...

Cheers


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Looks like the Summicron wins below f/2.8 and the Flektogon at every other aperture + for close focusing distance.

The clever way Carsten has set it up allows you to watch the vignetting effect in real time as you open up each lens. I'm quite surprised by the amount of vignetting of the Summicron.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:04 am    Post subject: Re: 35mm lens comparison Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Well, follow this link to see the photos and the result.
http://lucispictor.weebly.com/35mm-test-expanded.html


Thank you for this test. I think several of Mir's shots are a bit overexposed and this affects it's sharpness. Overall I am very impressed how this lens holds its own against Zeiss and Leica. For me without extreme pixel-peeping those 3 lenses are almost indistinguishable.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:


A pity you don't have the old Nikkor 35/2, as I'm very curios about it and would like to know how it compares to the others.


I don't have it anymore which I have regretted often.
But you can see a comparison (40D) if you follow the first link:
http://lucispictor.weebly.com/35mm-test.html


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
I'm quite surprised by the amount of vignetting of the Summicron.

Well, it's an f/2 lens after all. The Elmarit 2.8/35 is much better wide open.

jjphoto wrote:
I like the way you've set them up for comaprison in a page. Is that using Frames? It works well.

JJ


Thanks. Yes, I have used frames. I'm not good enough in JavaScript, so I needed to put up a frame set here. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a tough question. I think I liked Flek, Tak, Porst and Summicron the best in that order but considering other qualities like max aperture and close focus I couldn't chose just one. ...well, I have, I own the Flek, hmmm... Are you by any chance trying make us by more lenses?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Looks like the Summicron wins below f/2.8 and the Flektogon at every other aperture + for close focusing distance.

Depends what is most important for you.

As far as close focus is concerned, the MIR-24 is almost as good as the Flek and the Steinheil focuses even closer!

Now that I have sold the Summicron ( Crying or Very sad ), the Steinheil is my fav 35.
Followed by the MIR and the Vivitar (which I bought from this friend of mine).
You might ask why I bought the "worst" lens - last position does not mean it's a bad lens! And I really like the way it feels when you use it. It's rather big so the focus ring also is pleasant to use.
The Takumar 3.5/35 is a nice lens, but the 5D mirror hits the rear element at infinity. (For the 5D test I had to focus a bit closer with the Tak...)

I had shot with two Flektogon 2.4/35 before, both of which were rather bad. This copy here is a really good one and now I understant why so many love this lens!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lauge wrote:
... Are you by any chance trying make us by more lenses?


Laughing No, not at all. Wink

You know that any addiction is much nicer if it is shared. Wink

Last edited by LucisPictor on Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="LucisPictor"]
lauge wrote:

You that any addiction is much nicer if it is shared. Wink


Ha,ha,ha. Nice one. Let's get addicted together with the lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Winner in what? Sharpness, colors, IQ, price? For example take Leica's lens, its 5 times more expensive than mir-24, but the result is a lil better.
Imho you cant compare 3.5 and 2.0 lenses, and lenses that differ that much by price.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vulko wrote:
Winner in what? Sharpness, colors, IQ, price? For example take Leica's lens, its 5 times more expensive than mir-24, but the result is a lil better.

I don't know if you have read the kind of disclaimer that I have written. This is NOT a scientific test, it's just a personal evaulation that I did for fun reasons.
Winner in what? Like your personal favourite. Sure you claim that one, can't you?
If money is important for you then the Cron 35 will surely not be your winner... etc...


vulko wrote:

Imho you cant compare 3.5 and 2.0 lenses, and lenses that differ that much by price.

Of course I can. I just did!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor,
well ok. Then Mir is my favourite Smile Flectogon is also nice, but 2.4 version is way expensive. The others are just a waste of money.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Was worth the wait, great job. I really like the leica


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
peterqd wrote:
I'm quite surprised by the amount of vignetting of the Summicron.

Well, it's an f/2 lens after all. The Elmarit 2.8/35 is much better wide open.


This type of comparison I don't understand. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare the Summicron to Elmarit at f/2.8? Except for possibly the bokeh, comparing lenses at full open when they differ greatly does not provide a level playing field. I would expect a slow lens to perform well wide open, and if not, why bother with it? Nevertheless, thanks for the test. I think you may have underrated the Porst bokeh. And the Vivitar has a similar problem to its bigger Series 1 lenses with that haze around white when wide open.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Dimitry: Flek, Mir and Summicron are very close. I like the Mir's bokeh best.
Boy, talk about subjective ...


PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
....the Canon FD 35mm f2 is supposed to be excellent, but it looks like only film users and a few digital cameras can enjoy it.....I have the 35mm f2.8 and it is really very good and cheap to buy.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vulko wrote:
LucisPictor,
well ok. Then Mir is my favourite Smile Flectogon is also nice, but 2.4 version is way expensive. The others are just a waste of money.

I agree. The Flek is great but too expensive at the moment, esp. because you can easily get a bad copy.
The MIR is fantastic (if you don't need the top sharpness that some other lenses offer).
My fav is the Steinheil. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
peterqd wrote:
I'm quite surprised by the amount of vignetting of the Summicron.

Well, it's an f/2 lens after all. The Elmarit 2.8/35 is much better wide open.


This type of comparison I don't understand. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare the Summicron to Elmarit at f/2.8?


This is something that can be looked at from two sides.
Yes, on the one hand we should compare lenses at the same settings. That's why included a stopped down performance test.
No, on the other hand a fast lens only makes sense if it performs well when wide open. So it need to be at least closely good at f/2 as a slower lens at f/2.8.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2