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

Big test of around 100mm lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As others have hinted a full on test would be fatuous.

My advice is just keep the ones you use the most, because your subconscious obviously knows the answer to your question


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wuxiekeji wrote:
Charts tell you about sharpness, but don't tell you much about bokeh, flare, colour temperature, and the million other things that are important in any real photo...

+1


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming.


Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise.


I disagree. Shots in real world situations are far more enlightening than any test chart shot.


Not for comparisons, no they are not. Too many variables. A good test chart can show the strengths and weakness of a lens. I do recognize that lenses are made for real-world usage, but to compare lenses a test chart is more efficient and consistent.

Last edited by Oreste on Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aspen wrote:
Pontus, all of those lenses have been tested, and most of us know that they have strengths and a few weaknesses...mostly strengths Very Happy . I think testing lenses may have had validity when they were first introduced, before they were known. And when shooting film, only film, it was much more important information. But now, in this digital age, post production can eliminate many weaknesses, so much more depends upon the sensor of the camera. There are probably greater variables in using a Sony Nex 5n as opposed to a Nikon D4, etc., in respect to how a lens renders, and what can be pulled from a shot.

+1 very true.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


Yes, I agree that that is a good 'test target' but test charts show a lot more. They can show astigmatism, vignetting, and coma, which may not show up easily otherwise.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


Yes, I agree that that is a good 'test target' but test charts show a lot more. They can show astigmatism, vignetting, and coma, which may not show up easily otherwise.


I think if not show easily otherwise, not interesting really, to me photography is an art not technical sport.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


Yes, I agree that that is a good 'test target' but test charts show a lot more. They can show astigmatism, vignetting, and coma, which may not show up easily otherwise.


I think if not show easily otherwise, not interesting really, to me photography is an art not technical sport.


Well, it helps you to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various lenses, and shows the family resemblances among lenses from the same designers. Once you have used a test chart and understand about lenses, you can use it to evaluate lenses much more critically; it tells you more than merely random snapping tells you.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


Testing equipment is not done for enjoyment, normally.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


Testing equipment is not done for enjoyment, normally.


That's one of the dumbest things I've heard so far. Half this forum is about testing lenses for enjoyment. When I was a greenling I read the MTF charts like it was a holy bible. As I got more experience I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are. They tell you nothing of the character of a lens. I've used alot of lenses in my days, some I like, some I don't like and none of those choices have been based on an MTF chart.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Stop it Richard!


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Nisseliten wrote:
I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Stop it Richard!


I have a copy of the Leica "Bible" sitting right here beside me, he has a whole chapter on the limitations of MTF charts and their ultimate uselessness of evaluating a lens.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


Testing equipment is not done for enjoyment, normally.


That's one of the dumbest things I've heard so far. Half this forum is about testing lenses for enjoyment. When I was a greenling I read the MTF charts like it was a holy bible. As I got more experience I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are. They tell you nothing of the character of a lens. I've used alot of lenses in my days, some I like, some I don't like and none of those choices have been based on an MTF chart.


It's work. I mean by 'testing', using charts and getting the tripod out, and all that. Casual shooting is not 'testing'. I know what testing is and how to do it because I have done it. Shooting specially prepared test targets is testing. Random or even controlled shooting is not testing, though that can of course be very useful. I know a lot of people here have shown what they call 'test shots' to see what a lens looks like, but that is not testing.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I've learned one thing, it's that MTF charts are an excellent evaluation of a lens resolving power, vignetting and different aberrations. If you shoot pictures in a light sealed room, with controlled lighting at a specific poster a set distance from the lens, with the camera sitting on a granite tripod, laser guided focus and with the mirror locked up. Take a lens out of that enviroment and your skill, eye, movement, heartbeat, subject motion, wind, light, reflections, post process skills and everything else you will find in the real world will stand for 99.9% of the lens ability for rendering an image. And FYI, alot of the Leica lenses were intentionally imbued with defects for the type of real world shooting they were intended for, tossing the MTF score out the window already there.

I'd much rather see real world shooting of a lens than I would the images shot of an MTF chart. As it would show the subtle nuances that make the lens unique, which is more about the imperfections of the lens relative to the subject matter of that photo than the resolution and coma. Seeing those nuances gives you a deeper understanding of how the tool actually performs, and how you can utilize the uniqueness of the lens in your images. I own a dozen Leica lenses, and I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of pictures which each and every one of them. I can comfortably say I know the soul of the gear I use, I know them intimately. I've read the Leica "Bible" by Erwin puts more than once actually, But I still go outside of Leica if I need something else to create what my minds eye sees. The reason why I am a member here is not because I am an avid Leica shooter, but because I love sticking anything that creates an image circle infront of my film/sensor and seeing what comes out. It has made me a better photographer and lets me appreciate the subtlety of an image much more. And quite frankly, you have alot of strong opinions on alot of things, many times very rudely. but I have yet to see you produce a photo that I would consider above snapshot status. You are giving Leica a bad name on this forum, and I don't quite care for that.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
If I've learned one thing, it's that MTF charts are an excellent evaluation of a lens resolving power, vignetting and different aberrations. If you shoot pictures in a light sealed room, with controlled lighting at a specific poster a set distance from the lens, with the camera sitting on a granite tripod, laser guided focus and with the mirror locked up. Take a lens out of that enviroment and your skill, eye, movement, heartbeat, subject motion, wind, light, reflections, post process skills and everything else you will find in the real world will stand for 99.9% of the lens ability for rendering an image. And FYI, alot of the Leica lenses were intentionally imbued with defects for the type of real world shooting they were intended for, tossing the MTF score out the window already there.

I'd much rather see real world shooting of a lens than I would the images shot of an MTF chart. As it would show the subtle nuances that make the lens unique, which is more about the imperfections of the lens relative to the subject matter of that photo than the resolution and coma. Seeing those nuances gives you a deeper understanding of how the tool actually performs, and how you can utilize the uniqueness of the lens in your images. I own a dozen Leica lenses, and I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of pictures which each and every one of them. I can comfortably say I know the soul of the gear I use, I know them intimately. I've read the Leica "Bible" by Erwin puts more than once actually, But I still go outside of Leica if I need something else to create what my minds eye sees. The reason why I am a member here is not because I am an avid Leica shooter, but because I love sticking anything that creates an image circle infront of my film/sensor and seeing what comes out. It has made me a better photographer and lets me appreciate the subtlety of an image much more. And quite frankly, you have alot of strong opinions on alot of things, many times very rudely. but I have yet to see you produce a photo that I would consider above snapshot status. You are giving Leica a bad name on this forum, and I don't quite care for that.


It's only a game. It's difficult to find somebody for whom the "best" lens should be important in the real world. This is the excuse to have a lot of lenses, and more, and more, and so.

If we take off the interest of the game, what can we do with the lenses that have almost all of us.

Well, the indoor tests don't give useful informations. And so, Which will be the game to play?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
If I've learned one thing, it's that MTF charts are an excellent evaluation of a lens resolving power, vignetting and different aberrations. If you shoot pictures in a light sealed room, with controlled lighting at a specific poster a set distance from the lens, with the camera sitting on a granite tripod, laser guided focus and with the mirror locked up. Take a lens out of that enviroment and your skill, eye, movement, heartbeat, subject motion, wind, light, reflections, post process skills and everything else you will find in the real world will stand for 99.9% of the lens ability for rendering an image. And FYI, alot of the Leica lenses were intentionally imbued with defects for the type of real world shooting they were intended for, tossing the MTF score out the window already there.


Not exactly. Since perfection isn't possible, the balance of defects was carefully worked out so that specific traits would be present in the lens even if at the expense of others. (Such as resistance to flare, more contrast at full aperture, flatness of field, better close-up performance, etc...) The 'game' of lens design is a battle against cost and the technical capabilities of serial manufacture. Compromises were more necessary with the fastest lenses; with lenses of modest aperture, the challenges were always less and progress less visible. The 135mm f/4 lens is not difficult to design to a high level of quality at moderate cost; a 180mm f/2 is an enormous challenge. In the 1960s and 1970s, rapid progress was made in bringing out faster and faster lenses; this more or less ground to a halt in the early 1980s. The hard limits of cost and glass types had been reached. Fewer compromises were necessary compared to the designs of the 1940s and 1950s, and lenses such as the 50mm Summilux-M were unchanged for 40 years! The 50mm Summilux-R was unchanged for 30 years! In the case of the former, aspheric surfaces were used to improve the performance; in the reflex lens, an additional element was used (making it an 8-element lens) which is rather unusual. Aspherics are more useful in the M lenses where size is a major consideration. In any event, compromises made in the past had to be made because of technical limitations, which eventually were overcome.

Quote:

I'd much rather see real world shooting of a lens than I would the images shot of an MTF chart. As it would show the subtle nuances that make the lens unique, which is more about the imperfections of the lens relative to the subject matter of that photo than the resolution and coma. Seeing those nuances gives you a deeper understanding of how the tool actually performs, and how you can utilize the uniqueness of the lens in your images. I own a dozen Leica lenses, and I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of pictures which each and every one of them. I can comfortably say I know the soul of the gear I use, I know them intimately. I've read the Leica "Bible" by Erwin puts more than once actually, But I still go outside of Leica if I need something else to create what my minds eye sees. The reason why I am a member here is not because I am an avid Leica shooter, but because I love sticking anything that creates an image circle in front of my film/sensor and seeing what comes out. It has made me a better photographer and lets me appreciate the subtlety of an image much more. And quite frankly, you have a lot of strong opinions on a lot of things, many times very rudely. but I have yet to see you produce a photo that I would consider above snapshot status. You are giving Leica a bad name on this forum, and I don't quite care for that.


This site is not for exhibition, at least that is not my inclination. I am well above average as a photographer, but I do not care to show my work here.I am not some egoist who feels compelled to show every image he shoots. I have taken tens of thousands of images, quite possibly hundreds of thousands. The question posed by the poster was about 'testing'. I did not bring up MTF curves. I have used the Paterson test chart and used it to compare lenses, and it has shown me the differences clearly, quite clearly. I'll ask you to respect me and my informed and educated opinions more than those of beginners or those who have no experience with actual lens testing. Random shooting will give an overall impression, but testing with a test chart will provide more specific and detailed information.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Nisseliten wrote:
If I've learned one thing, it's that MTF charts are an excellent evaluation of a lens resolving power, vignetting and different aberrations. If you shoot pictures in a light sealed room, with controlled lighting at a specific poster a set distance from the lens, with the camera sitting on a granite tripod, laser guided focus and with the mirror locked up. Take a lens out of that enviroment and your skill, eye, movement, heartbeat, subject motion, wind, light, reflections, post process skills and everything else you will find in the real world will stand for 99.9% of the lens ability for rendering an image. And FYI, alot of the Leica lenses were intentionally imbued with defects for the type of real world shooting they were intended for, tossing the MTF score out the window already there.


Not exactly. Since perfection isn't possible, the balance of defects was carefully worked out so that specific traits would be present in the lens even if at the expense of others. (Such as resistance to flare, more contrast at full aperture, flatness of field, better close-up performance, etc...) The 'game' of lens design is a battle against cost and the technical capabilities of serial manufacture. Compromises were more necessary with the fastest lenses; with lenses of modest aperture, the challenges were always less and progress less visible. The 135mm f/4 lens is not difficult to design to a high level of quality at moderate cost; a 180mm f/2 is an enormous challenge. In the 1960s and 1970s, rapid progress was made in bringing out faster and faster lenses; this more or less ground to a halt in the early 1980s. The hard limits of cost and glass types had been reached. Fewer compromises were necessary compared to the designs of the 1940s and 1950s, and lenses such as the 50mm Summilux-M were unchanged for 40 years! The 50mm Summilux-R was unchanged for 30 years! In the case of the former, aspheric surfaces were used to improve the performance; in the reflex lens, an additional element was used (making it an 8-element lens) which is rather unusual. Aspherics are more useful in the M lenses where size is a major consideration. In any event, compromises made in the past had to be made because of technical limitations, which eventually were overcome.

Quote:

I'd much rather see real world shooting of a lens than I would the images shot of an MTF chart. As it would show the subtle nuances that make the lens unique, which is more about the imperfections of the lens relative to the subject matter of that photo than the resolution and coma. Seeing those nuances gives you a deeper understanding of how the tool actually performs, and how you can utilize the uniqueness of the lens in your images. I own a dozen Leica lenses, and I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of pictures which each and every one of them. I can comfortably say I know the soul of the gear I use, I know them intimately. I've read the Leica "Bible" by Erwin puts more than once actually, But I still go outside of Leica if I need something else to create what my minds eye sees. The reason why I am a member here is not because I am an avid Leica shooter, but because I love sticking anything that creates an image circle in front of my film/sensor and seeing what comes out. It has made me a better photographer and lets me appreciate the subtlety of an image much more. And quite frankly, you have a lot of strong opinions on a lot of things, many times very rudely. but I have yet to see you produce a photo that I would consider above snapshot status. You are giving Leica a bad name on this forum, and I don't quite care for that.


This site is not for exhibition, at least that is not my inclination. I am well above average as a photographer, but I do not care to show my work here.I am not some egoist who feels compelled to show every image he shoots. I have taken tens of thousands of images, quite possibly hundreds of thousands. The question posed by the poster was about 'testing'. I did not bring up MTF curves. I have used the Paterson test chart and used it to compare lenses, and it has shown me the differences clearly, quite clearly. I'll ask you to respect me and my informed and educated opinions more than those of beginners or those who have no experience with actual lens testing. Random shooting will give an overall impression, but testing with a test chart will provide more specific and detailed information.


I am quite aware of the balancing of defects, not because of MTF charts but because I collect lenses from the time and use them daily. Many times after gathering information on characteristics from this community.
As to this site being about exhibition you are right, it's for the love and use of manual focused lenses, often of the vintage kind. And my comment was not pointed at this thread specifically, but your presence on this forum as a whole. But please enlighten me why I should take your word for it, that you are an above average photographer. When the few works you do post point to the contrary. And why should I respect your "informed and educated" opinions, when they are most often bigoted, unrelated to the topic, grossly misinformed or downright rude and condescending. You do know your history, I'll grant you that. But so do Alot of members on this forum, most likely better than you and me both. You will get more friends and more respect with a bit of humility.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Nisseliten wrote:
If I've learned one thing, it's that MTF charts are an excellent evaluation of a lens resolving power, vignetting and different aberrations. If you shoot pictures in a light sealed room, with controlled lighting at a specific poster a set distance from the lens, with the camera sitting on a granite tripod, laser guided focus and with the mirror locked up. Take a lens out of that enviroment and your skill, eye, movement, heartbeat, subject motion, wind, light, reflections, post process skills and everything else you will find in the real world will stand for 99.9% of the lens ability for rendering an image. And FYI, alot of the Leica lenses were intentionally imbued with defects for the type of real world shooting they were intended for, tossing the MTF score out the window already there.


Not exactly. Since perfection isn't possible, the balance of defects was carefully worked out so that specific traits would be present in the lens even if at the expense of others. (Such as resistance to flare, more contrast at full aperture, flatness of field, better close-up performance, etc...) The 'game' of lens design is a battle against cost and the technical capabilities of serial manufacture. Compromises were more necessary with the fastest lenses; with lenses of modest aperture, the challenges were always less and progress less visible. The 135mm f/4 lens is not difficult to design to a high level of quality at moderate cost; a 180mm f/2 is an enormous challenge. In the 1960s and 1970s, rapid progress was made in bringing out faster and faster lenses; this more or less ground to a halt in the early 1980s. The hard limits of cost and glass types had been reached. Fewer compromises were necessary compared to the designs of the 1940s and 1950s, and lenses such as the 50mm Summilux-M were unchanged for 40 years! The 50mm Summilux-R was unchanged for 30 years! In the case of the former, aspheric surfaces were used to improve the performance; in the reflex lens, an additional element was used (making it an 8-element lens) which is rather unusual. Aspherics are more useful in the M lenses where size is a major consideration. In any event, compromises made in the past had to be made because of technical limitations, which eventually were overcome.

Quote:

I'd much rather see real world shooting of a lens than I would the images shot of an MTF chart. As it would show the subtle nuances that make the lens unique, which is more about the imperfections of the lens relative to the subject matter of that photo than the resolution and coma. Seeing those nuances gives you a deeper understanding of how the tool actually performs, and how you can utilize the uniqueness of the lens in your images. I own a dozen Leica lenses, and I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of pictures which each and every one of them. I can comfortably say I know the soul of the gear I use, I know them intimately. I've read the Leica "Bible" by Erwin puts more than once actually, But I still go outside of Leica if I need something else to create what my minds eye sees. The reason why I am a member here is not because I am an avid Leica shooter, but because I love sticking anything that creates an image circle in front of my film/sensor and seeing what comes out. It has made me a better photographer and lets me appreciate the subtlety of an image much more. And quite frankly, you have a lot of strong opinions on a lot of things, many times very rudely. but I have yet to see you produce a photo that I would consider above snapshot status. You are giving Leica a bad name on this forum, and I don't quite care for that.


This site is not for exhibition, at least that is not my inclination. I am well above average as a photographer, but I do not care to show my work here.I am not some egoist who feels compelled to show every image he shoots. I have taken tens of thousands of images, quite possibly hundreds of thousands. The question posed by the poster was about 'testing'. I did not bring up MTF curves. I have used the Paterson test chart and used it to compare lenses, and it has shown me the differences clearly, quite clearly. I'll ask you to respect me and my informed and educated opinions more than those of beginners or those who have no experience with actual lens testing. Random shooting will give an overall impression, but testing with a test chart will provide more specific and detailed information.


I am quite aware of the balancing of defects, not because of MTF charts but because I collect lenses from the time and use them daily. Many times after gathering information on characteristics from this community.
As to this site being about exhibition you are right, it's for the love and use of manual focused lenses, often of the vintage kind. And my comment was not pointed at this thread specifically, but your presence on this forum as a whole. But please enlighten me why I should take your word for it, that you are an above average photographer. When the few works you do post point to the contrary. And why should I respect your "informed and educated" opinions, when they are most often bigoted, unrelated to the topic, grossly misinformed or downright rude and condescending. You do know your history, I'll grant you that. But so do Alot of members on this forum, most likely better than you and me both. You will get more friends and more respect with a bit of humility.


Some people say things that are utterly false, however widely believed. and deeply felt, and this needs to be pointed out.* As for my photographs, I may occasionally show one or two here as examples of technical issues, but in general I will not show them here; that is not what I am here for. Some of my photography is documentary and would not be of interest to others or appreciated by them.

*The name 'Carl Zeiss' , for instance, has become almost meaningless. The Cosina-made 'Carl Zeiss' manual-focus lenses currently offered for Nikon and Canon are not of the same quality as those made under the Contax name, as was revealed in tests run by Ken Rockwell and others. The name 'Carl Zeiss' is licensed now.

Here is a good site for lens reviews:

http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/480/133/

General truths:

Older high-speed lenses, extreme wide-angle, and zoom lenses are often the least desirable of older lenses. Moderate-speed normal and moderate tele and WA lenses are the ones to look for. For example, the 1967 20mm Nikkor f/3.5 is much inferior to the 1977 version, whereas the 1965-ish 50mm f/2 does not suffer so badly in comparison to later versions. The greatest progress in lens design has been at the extremes of design. (This is why old Contarex 35mm f/4 and 135mm f/4 lenses still seem so good today.)

Normal lenses are especially subject to price pressures, and do not usually represent an 'all-out-assault' on the state of the art. (Someone here posted a link to a site about the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 in which it was disclosed that the designers chose to reduce the variety of glass types to the absolute minimum to contain costs; almost certainly the lens could be improved with fewer restrictions on glass types, but the cost would be greater.)


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It seems that this thread is being derailed... ¡que lastima!, as the Spanish speakers say...

Anyway...

hifisapi wrote:
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


A mannequin is a good idea, but to make it more "real world", I would suggest finding an art model of sorts in your locale, if any such are available.
I mean some person that poses for paintings, maybe in a local art class.
Or just any person you know who can sit still for a long period of time Smile

For partially simulating a real life situation, put your model on a park bench, or under a tree, or at ant other spot where they can remain still for a enough time for you to take some good shots.
Choose you distance, place your camera on a tripod, compose, focus (with 'live view' if necessary), and shoot away!

Oreste wrote:
Nisseliten wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


Testing equipment is not done for enjoyment, normally.


That's one of the dumbest things I've heard so far. Half this forum is about testing lenses for enjoyment. When I was a greenling I read the MTF charts like it was a holy bible. As I got more experience I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are. They tell you nothing of the character of a lens. I've used alot of lenses in my days, some I like, some I don't like and none of those choices have been based on an MTF chart.


It's work. I mean by 'testing', using charts and getting the tripod out, and all that. Casual shooting is not 'testing'. I know what testing is and how to do it because I have done it. Shooting specially prepared test targets is testing. Random or even controlled shooting is not testing, though that can of course be very useful. I know a lot of people here have shown what they call 'test shots' to see what a lens looks like, but that is not testing.


No body said it's gonna be random; on the contrary, most said it will be a real life situation, but will be as less random as possible, especially if it involves shooting an inanimate object.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In response to the OP, please go ahead with your tests. I'd be interested in seeing the results.

Even if the lenses in question have already been well tested over the years and are well known, the results of your tests will apply to your copy of each lens. You may have an above average or below average copy of each lens, and the test results will probably help you decide which ones to keep.

I like doing lens tests, and hope to do a lot more during next year's astroimaging season. I can't really use test charts, so I have to do controlled test shots, usually with just 15 seconds of exposure. Sometimes the results are surprising. For example, my Contax 100mm f/2 (with fantastic MTF charts) wasn't that outstanding, but the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 and Contax 85mm f/2.8 were surprisingly good. Sample variations? I'd like to find a way to focus my modern Canon AF precisely, so I can try them too. Some of them ought to trounce the older MF lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Misha_M wrote:
It seems that this thread is being derailed... ¡que lastima!, as the Spanish speakers say...

Anyway...

hifisapi wrote:
you dont need to use a chart per se, but just something consistent and repeatable like a mannekin.
this way images are directly comparable.


A mannequin is a good idea, but to make it more "real world", I would suggest finding an art model of sorts in your locale, if any such are available.
I mean some person that poses for paintings, maybe in a local art class.
Or just any person you know who can sit still for a long period of time Smile

For partially simulating a real life situation, put your model on a park bench, or under a tree, or at ant other spot where they can remain still for a enough time for you to take some good shots.
Choose you distance, place your camera on a tripod, compose, focus (with 'live view' if necessary), and shoot away!

Oreste wrote:
Nisseliten wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Canon did go on this MTF chart was most important , result clear sharp nothing special lenses. I like lens 'issues' characters and not like at all just sharp lenses. This kind of chart help for some lenses and put down so many others , not the way to go if like diversity.
I found to boring all kind of test shoots from same boring subject, like test chart or bottle , bookshelf etc


Testing equipment is not done for enjoyment, normally.


That's one of the dumbest things I've heard so far. Half this forum is about testing lenses for enjoyment. When I was a greenling I read the MTF charts like it was a holy bible. As I got more experience I realized they truly are as useless as your idol Erwin puts think they are. They tell you nothing of the character of a lens. I've used alot of lenses in my days, some I like, some I don't like and none of those choices have been based on an MTF chart.


It's work. I mean by 'testing', using charts and getting the tripod out, and all that. Casual shooting is not 'testing'. I know what testing is and how to do it because I have done it. Shooting specially prepared test targets is testing. Random or even controlled shooting is not testing, though that can of course be very useful. I know a lot of people here have shown what they call 'test shots' to see what a lens looks like, but that is not testing.


No body said it's gonna be random; on the contrary, most said it will be a real life situation, but will be as less random as possible, especially if it involves shooting an inanimate object.


Yes, but....

You need something that has fine consistent geometric detail all the way across the image (gratings and screens are good for this, as are buildings with brick surfaces). A mannequin head does not show the edges of the lens. Even though it will not tell you everything, a lens test chart is the most revealing target and the most valuable lens evaluation tool.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Big test of around 100mm lenses Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:

Canon FD 85/1.2 Asph
Samyang 85/1.4
Konica Hexanon 85/1.8
Contax G 90/2.8
Voigtländer 90/3.5 Apo
Tokina 90/2.5 Macro
Olympus OM 90/2 Macro
Olympus OM 100/2
Olympus PenF 100/3.5
X-Fujinon 100/2.8 EBC
Yashica ML 100/3.5 Macro
Konica Hexanon 100/2.8
Nikon 105/1.8 AI-S
Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S

And as a bonus the zooms Hexanon UC 45-100/3.5 and Olympus PenF 50-90/3.5 at their longest.



Holy cow, that's some collection. While test charts and controlled situations are definitely of value for those that want that type of data, this is your test, so I suggest you do whatever you need to help make your decisions. Whichever way you go, I will have an interest in seeing the results. However, that sure is a lot of work as others have also said, so I would suggest dropping the zooms since they're different animals anyway. In my experience, I have managed to screw up the focus on one or more, invalidating the results or forcing more time investment. AND, focusing is so critical to the results that it becomes the biggest challenge; I usually take at least three shots with each stage of the test, refocusing each time to better my chances of having one perfect.

Now with all of that said, I agree with whoever said that you might already know the ones you like best. For me it isn't necessarily the sharpest or even the lenses in best condition, it's the ones that seem to give me the most smiles time after time, and that may result from colors, bokeh, crispness, whatever that particular lens does to make me happy. Make yourself happy before you just decide to keep the technically best performer. I'll be eager to see what you come up with, whatever it is.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, and one other thing, but I realize others may disagree. I don't see much value in comparing wide open shots from lenses with significantly different maximum apertures. You may want to get an appreciation for that performance, but not necessarily fair to compare f/2.5 with f/3.5. I typically look to the first common stop.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2