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

50-58mm lens test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: 50-58mm lens test Reply with quote
Hi all,

I friend of mine have borrowed me the Voigtlndr Nokton 58mm f/1.4 made by Cosina and I decided to compare this lens with my other 50-58mm lenses.

The lenses I own and are included in this non scientific test are as follows:

Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (by Komine)
Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2
Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7
Helios-77M-4 50mm f/1.8

The scene setup looks like this:




Following are the crops at various aperture settings:


To see the 100% crops click here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_00e422b3be_o.jpg


"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_1034fd0382_b.jpg"



To see the 100% crops click here:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_dbfce25d7c_o.jpg


"http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_55f31b86ef_b.jpg"


At wide open I am not really impressed by the Nokton lens made by Cosina. But the bokeh looks very good.

I am surprised by Helios-44M-4 wide open compared to Nokton. The Helios is one of the cheapest M42 lenses available today.
The Vivitar 55mm macro is very sharp even from wide open, I just love it.

Started thinking why should I spend more on expensive lenses when I can do similar with less.

Anyway I would love to see your comments. Smile

Cheers,

Voe

Last edited by voe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:58 pm; edited 5 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Re: 50-58mm lens test Reply with quote
Quoting Voe's post to have the pictures shown

voe wrote:
Hi all,

I friend of mine have borrowed me the Voigtlndr Nokton 58mm f/1.4 made by Cosina and I decided to compare this lens with my other 50-58mm lenses.

The lenses I own and are included in this non scientific test are as follows:

Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro (by Komine)
Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2
Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7
Helios-77M-4 50mm f/1.8

The scene setup looks like this:



Following are the crops at various aperture settings:


To see the 100% crops click here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2424454327_00e422b3be_o.jpg






To see the 100% crops click here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2425262590_dbfce25d7c_o.jpg





At wide open I am not really impressed by the Nokton lens made by Cosina. But the bokeh look very good.

I am impressed by Helios-44M-4 wide open compared to Nokton. This is one of the cheapest M42 lenses available today.
The Vivitar 55mm macro is very sharp even from wide open, I just love this lens.

Started thinking why should I spend more on expensive lenses when I can do similar with less.

Anyway I would love to see your comments. Smile

Cheers,

Voe


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really an extensive test with a lot of work involved.
What would be your "ranking"?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Starting from the premise that I don't believe in this kind of tests anymore (experience has proved for me that it's only in real use that you can evaluate a lens), based on what I see, I place what I see coming from the Nokton lens several units of appreciation above the other lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am behind Orio, this is a lot of work for nothing... Welcome to aboard! Nice to see you here and thank you for sharing this information with us!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Really an extensive test with a lot of work involved.
What would be your "ranking"?


Hi Carsten,
Thank you for your feedback.

From a quick inspection I can say that even at wide open the USSR lenses do not show any PF or CA but are sharp enough. Not so for the Nokton until f/2.8. The Pentax shows some PF or CA at f/1.7 but is completely gone by f/2.
At f/1.7 (for the Pentax) and f/1.8 (for Nokton and Helios-77M-4) the Pentax lens has the best sharpness according to my eyes. In regards to PF at wide open the Helios wins hands down.
The way I see it, stopped down from f/2.8 most of the lenses perform very well, the difference sharpness wise is negligible to the naked eye. The next level which I am not going to go is to run a MTF resolution tests. The result from a MTF test will show the hardly noticeable differences between the lenses which in real world photo shooting is not as important as other factor in photography like light, composition, decisive moment, etc..

Cheers,

Voe

Last edited by voe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:28 pm    Post subject: My impression Reply with quote
Hi all,
I started this test at around 3pm and the sun position was shifting during the whole test this is why you might notice the harsh highlights in the background of the Nokton test.
The test was done on a tripod using two seconds delay and using a remote cable shutter to get rid of any camera shake. I managed to obtain the most exact focus with any lens so I will not do injustice to a lens being out of focus.
To my understanding everything except the sun light was in a controlled environment.
The test should be real because the objects in the setup scene are real using real lenses in natural light environment.
After the test I did not have enough time to inspect each and every crop to see wich one is better but I noticed that in the wide open shots the Nokton did not do better that the Helios, this was the biggest surprise for me. I knew from shooting various subjects that the Nokton has lots of PF/CA (whatever you want to call it) when the lens is wide open. Only when it is well above f/2.8 and further the PF or CA dissapears. Unless the lens is faulty (which I doubt) for me there is no reason to put the Nokton wide open sharpness quality on a level much higher than the rest of the el cheapo lenses.
Bokeh wise it is a different story. Arguably the Nokton has the best bokeh (maybe Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 is as good, but it is a matter of personal taste) among my tested lenses.
Sharpness for the Nokton from f/2.8 and on is getting to a very good level but nothing the other lenses cannot do.

I see where Orio is coming from when he says that he puts Nokton on a much higher level than the rest. If I have invested in expensive glass it would hurt me to see that something cheaper out there performs at least as good as my expensive lens sharpness wise. But a very good example for this is the case with my Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited which is considered to be the best lens money can buy by the famous photography writer Mike Johnston in his article at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml. The FA 77mm Limited has a glorious bokeh, one of the best if not the best I have seen from any lens.
The lens has its drawbacks like any other lens, but for what it was created, it performs more that great. When I compared this lens with my newly acquired Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 I was surprised to see that at f/2.8 and f/4 the Juputer-9 was sharper.
There was no PF or CA on the Jupiter-9 shots at all. The FA 77mm Limited had PF or CA until it went past f/3.5


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If this was the only test ever made, and was the most accurate ever made, then based on what I'm seeing, the Pentax wins easily.

Thank you for putting out the effort for this! As you indicated, it's not a scientific test, but it still is very nice to see some comparisons.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:26 am    Post subject: Re: My impression Reply with quote
voe wrote:

I see where Orio is coming from when he says that he puts Nokton on a much higher level than the rest. If I have invested in expensive glass it would hurt me to see that something cheaper out there performs at least as good as my expensive lens sharpness wise.


My consideration has nothing to do with the price of the lenses. One of my preferred lenses is a Eur 7 Jupiter-37.
From the samples you made, I prefer the Nokton because I can not see any significant differences sharpness wise with the other lenses at the same aperture, while the bokehs are worlds apart.
Of course mine is a personal preference and in no way pretending to be a truth for anyone else outside me.
Also this preference is based solely on your test image, so I am ready to change my mind completely in front of normal application pictures that would show a different quality result.

Quote:
The test should be real because the objects in the setup scene are real using real lenses in natural light environment.


Ok, it seems I need to elaborate the concept further. I didn't mean that your objects or lights aren't real. What I mean is that this is not what the lenses were planned and made for. They are made to be used to take "real" photographs of people, trees, buildings, mountains, where real means "not test". I say this because I used to make this kind of tests a lot in the past, lose many days over them, only to find out that maybe the lens that appeared the "winner" in the test, was significantly less pleasing than a lower rated lens when taking a "real" photograph - maybe because the focus distance was different, maybe because the multi coating did not stop a flare, maybe because it's just the visual output as the whole that did not look enough pleasing.

In the end it all boils down to the fact that such tests are never complete and never exhaustive enough to tell all the important things about a lens. A typical example, a lens that works great focused at infinite, may work bad when focused close up. So if you only test close up, you risk to miss a big part of the story.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:24 am    Post subject: Re: My impression Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Of course mine is a personal preference and in no way pretending to be a truth for anyone else outside me.
Also this preference is based solely on your test image, so I am ready to change my mind completely in front of normal application pictures that would show a different quality result.

Ok, it seems I need to elaborate the concept further. I didn't mean that your objects or lights aren't real. What I mean is that this is not what the lenses were planned and made for. They are made to be used to take "real" photographs of people, trees, buildings, mountains, where real means "not test".


If you look carefully at the Nokton center crops between f/1.4 and f/2 and compare them with the f/1.7-f/2 for the Pentax, f/1.8-f/2 of the Helios-77M-4 and f/2 of Helios-44M you will see what I am talking about.

So does it mean that even if do a comparative test by shooting trees or buildings the fact that I call it a test makes the resulting images not valid to make a point how a lens performs in a certain situation? I know this lens is probably designed to be a portrait lens, but it does not mean I have to use it only for that.

When somebody has to pay around $400USD for a modern and fast aperture lens one would expect to beat a 20-30 year old cheap lens that cost the same amount as a nice dinner for two.

Maybe Cosina should have put out a disclaimer saying that the lens is not designed to photograph shiny and contrasty objects between apertures f/1.4 and f/2. (just kidding but I hope you get my point Wink

Cheers,

Voe


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
welcome voe,
I don't see difference between the lens
I don't even see difference between the stops
I would prefer the nokton because it open at 1.4


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
welcome voe,
I don't see difference between the lens
I don't even see difference between the stops
I would prefer the nokton because it open at 1.4


1. That is my point, I hardly see a difference above f/4.

2. If you look closely and watch for the DoF you will spot the difference.

3. Of couse not a perfect f/1.4 is better than no f/1.4 at all, but ask your self this question.. in practice if f/1.7 is not enough for you to take the shot, how much better would the f/1.4 be? It is basically half a stop.
If you ask me, I would rather have sharp f/1.7 that I can rely on than unsharp f/1.4, but that is just me.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Re: My impression Reply with quote
voe wrote:

Maybe Cosina should have put out a disclaimer saying that the lens is not designed to photograph shiny and contrasty objects between apertures f/1.4 and f/2. (just kidding but I hope you get my point Wink
Cheers,
Voe


Well, the fact that there are expensive lenses that perform badly, and cheap lenses that perform very well, is a fact.

I am not contesting the results of your test, I'm just saying that as far as I am personally concerned (and I don't pretend my position to be good for everyone), I don't rely on this kind of tests to judge a lens anymore. Since I buy lenses to take photographs, I prefer to judge a lens from the photographs that it takes, and not from a test. It is possible that when used "on the field", a lens reveals other qualities more important than a defect that emerges from a test. Or is it possible that it confirms to be a bad lens. In any case, I always want to give any lens a chance to do its job before I dismiss it.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Re: My impression Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I am not contesting the results of your test, I'm just saying that as far as I am personally concerned (and I don't pretend my position to be good for everyone), I don't rely on this kind of tests to judge a lens anymore. Since I buy lenses to take photographs, I prefer to judge a lens from the photographs that it takes, and not from a test. It is possible that when used "on the field", a lens reveals other qualities more important than a defect that emerges from a test. Or is it possible that it confirms to be a bad lens. In any case, I always want to give any lens a chance to do its job before I dismiss it.


That's a very reasonable and understandable attitude. The problem only is that you need to have the lens first before you can try it. Tests are supposed to help with your decision.
It would be great if we could try-before-buy our gear!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really enjoy these tests even if they only show how then lens performs in one particular situation.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:32 am    Post subject: Re: My impression Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
The problem only is that you need to have the lens first before you can try it. Tests are supposed to help with your decision.
It would be great if we could try-before-buy our gear!


I like it better the way Veijo does. He takes a lens out and shoots his surroundings: the university, the ships in the harbour... the fact that he always depicts the same subject helps to see how different lenses operate. At the same time, his are never test shots, they are always photograph, so if a lens has defects like chromatic aberration, you can still see them, but you see them in the context of a normal photo, and you can see how much it impacts the global result and how much important it is compared with other lens characteristics. I for instance would have no problem buying a lens with a little CA, if it renders the rest of the image in a way that is pleasing me. The whole, in photography, is made of the particulars, but it's always something more than the particulars.

A case in point: take the Jupiter-9 and the Contax Sonnar 85. I have used both extensively for street portraiture. I am sure, that if i set up a bookshelf test, the results of the two lenses would be quite near if not identical. Yet, when I use the lenses for what they were made for (portraits), I always end up liking the Contax more. Why? It's not a matter of price, and neither a matter of fractional differences in the sharpness that you can notice from a beer label closeup. It's a matter of the whole photograph, the whole output. The same does not happen, for instance, with the Jupiter-37. In Budapest, I had with me both the Rollei Sonnar 85 (which is about the same lens design as the Contax), and the Jupiter-37 which is a 135mm focal lenght. But in spite of the focal lenght difference, I now am not able to tell if a slide was taken with the Rollei or the J-37, unless I used both in a row and can tell by judging the different enlargements.
So the fact is that the output of the Jupiter-37 is much like that of a Zeiss Sonnar, while the output of the Jupiter-9, in spite of its direct Sonnar heritage, it's not. And while it would be equivalent for me to use the Sonnar 85 or the Jupiter-37, it would not be the same to use the Sonnar 85 or the Jupiter-9. And the bottom point of all this, is, that I would have NEVER been able to reach these conclusions from a simple bookshelf test. I needed to take the lenses out to real photo action, in order to understand.
-


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
I really enjoy these tests even if they only show how then lens performs in one particular situation.


Yes, it's always nice to see that people exists that are caring about the lenses and taking the time to set up these tests, absolutely.

THis is true regardless of the fact that one then consider the tests useful or not.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, I really agree to you. It is much better to "use" the lens in real life.
But what I was pointing at is that you cannot do that with a lens you do not own. So if you need to decide between lenses you do not have, you need to rely on tests (or on photos somebody else has shot which also is not always a really reliable source).


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio, I really agree to you. It is much better to "use" the lens in real life.
But what I was pointing at is that you cannot do that with a lens you do not own. So if you need to decide between lenses you do not have, you need to rely on tests (or on photos somebody else has shot which also is not always a really reliable source).


I can't see the point. What makes the difference, for you, between a bookshelf test that someone else posts, and some normal photos that someone else posts?
If you don't own the lens, you are always going to need to judge on someone else's photos, and this is a given. So, then, why bookshelf tests should be preferable to photos like those that Veijo makes, for instance? It is always "someone else" that makes them.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio, I really agree to you. It is much better to "use" the lens in real life.
But what I was pointing at is that you cannot do that with a lens you do not own. So if you need to decide between lenses you do not have, you need to rely on tests (or on photos somebody else has shot which also is not always a really reliable source).


I can't see the point. What makes the difference, for you, between a bookshelf test that someone else posts, and some normal photos that someone else posts?
If you don't own the lens, you are always going to need to judge on someone else's photos, and this is a given. So, then, why bookshelf tests should be preferable to photos like those that Veijo makes, for instance? It is always "someone else" that makes them.


No, with "test" I am not referring to "bookshelf" tests but to tests that have been performed by professional magazines, for example.
I don't think that home-made bookshelf tests can really indicate how "good" (this is alone is a problematic word) a lens is, I would not buy a lens because it has performed well in someone's bookshelf test. No offence! I am including the ones I did, because I think you can never be sure if you have focussed correctly, just one point.
I agree that Vejio's example shots can show a lot about a lens' character. And I also agree that you only will see if you like a lens or not if you shoot with it.
But what I like to refer to are tests in photo magazines, but those test are hard to find. They all, of course, deal with new lenses.
That's why I love to find old magazines.

These pro tests can help with a decision. That's the point.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

No, with "test" I am not referring to "bookshelf" tests but to tests that have been performed by professional magazines, for example.


OK, but these are a different thing, I think, from what we were talking about.
I would call them more like "scientific measurements" than "tests" as we commonly mean tests.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

No, with "test" I am not referring to "bookshelf" tests but to tests that have been performed by professional magazines, for example.


OK, but these are a different thing, I think, from what we were talking about.
I would call them more like "scientific measurements" than "tests" as we commonly mean tests.


OK. But these "scientific measurements" are what I was referring to. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe there is something to be learned from all tests. 'Real life', 'bookshelf' and 'scientific' will all show you a bit of what the equipment is capable of. I enjoy looking at all the sample shots and learn a little from each one. I also know that there is a margin for user error or variables (such as changing light conditions).

Please continue to show ALL tests, they benefit me greatly!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would have liked to have seen some corner crops - the test is misleading without them. I would bet the Helios 44M-4 would have got a much lower rating wide open.

And what camera was used for the test? If it's a "crop" camera the test tells me very little about how the lenses would perform full frame.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
I would have liked to have seen some corner crops - the test is misleading without them. I would bet the Helios 44M-4 would have got a much lower rating wide open.

And what camera was used for the test? If it's a "crop" camera the test tells me very little about how the lenses would perform full frame.


Maybe I will manage next Saturday to do an outdoor test of a brick wall and will post the result here.

The camera is Pentax K10D, 1.5 crop factor.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2