| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:44 pm Post subject: Comparing two 135mm lenses |
 |
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hi folks
Light was not the best today but hopefully good enough. These are all either wide open or one stop down at f5.6:
Lens A:
Lens B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Lens B has smoother bokeh , more contrast and looks sharper than Lens A ....
Lans B also has smaller DOF ....
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964)
Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Really? I can't see much difference at all.
I do think Lens A has a slightly warmer tone.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Really? I can't see much difference at all.
I do think Lens A has a slightly warmer tone. |
I don't see much difference. Really, to do tests, a test chart is best. Otherwise, the slightest variation in focus or lighting will enter into the analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here are a few more shots with 100% crops:
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Now that I see it again in the 1st test the focusing point is different.
In the clock test if the focus point and aperture is identical in both lenses then Lens B has a smaller DOF than the other...
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I focussed on the LONDON lettering on the clock, both lenses were wide open. In all the shots I focussed on the same point between lenses. I can't decide which has the smaller dof, I think A is slightly smaller, but it's very hard to tell.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6950
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF. |
Again, without controlled conditions and a test chart the analysis is hampered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jito
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jito wrote:
B! B! B!
Sharper IMO, but most important, more contrast and better wider dynamic range.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamNR17
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 1855
Location: Norfolk, UK
Expire: 2012-09-06
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GrahamNR17 wrote:
I would have either. Sell the ugliest one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
| Keysersoze27 wrote: |
if the focus point and aperture is identical in both lenses then Lens B has a smaller DOF than the other... |
I thought the same thing
..but anyway, both look good to me.. keep the one which feels better to you (if you plan to sell one)
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF. |
Actually, A is a faster lens by half a stop.
I'm trying to narrow down my large collection of 135mms, I had so many, got rid of the crappy ones already, still have some lesser ones to sell, narrowed it down to 6 really good ones and can't decide between them so will probably end up keeping all 6!
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF. |
Actually, A is a faster lens by half a stop.
I'm trying to narrow down my large collection of 135mms, I had so many, got rid of the crappy ones already, still have some lesser ones to sell, narrowed it down to 6 really good ones and can't decide between them so will probably end up keeping all 6! |
May I ask why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why I'm reducing the number of 135mm lenses I own?
Simple, I only want to keep the best ones, the lesser ones are useless to me and I can sell them to finance new purchases.
Actually, I remembered another I want to keep, so it's 7 keepers...
Konica Hexanon AE 3.2/135
Konica Hexanon EE 3.5/135
Konica Hexar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Topcor 3.5/135
Pentacon 2.8/135
Meyer Primotar 3.5/135
Jupiter-11A 4/135
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Why I'm reducing the number of 135mm lenses I own?
Simple, I only want to keep the best ones, the lesser ones are useless to me and I can sell them to finance new purchases.
Actually, I remembered another I want to keep, so it's 7 keepers...
Konica Hexanon AE 3.2/135
Konica Hexanon EE 3.5/135
Konica Hexar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Topcor 3.5/135
Pentacon 2.8/135
Meyer Primotar 3.5/135
Jupiter-11A 4/135 |
No, why keep more than 1? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
I noticed a long time ago that the more of any one type of lens I had, the less I would use any of them. Shall I take the Junkagon 1.4/50, or the Fuzzinar 1.7/55, or the Sphericrap 1.8/55, or the Luxanor 2/58, or the Dimalux 1.9/55, or the Curvigonet 2.2/45, or the Macro-Astigmarol 2.8/55, or the . . . . . . . . ? Er, aw, um, dammit, now the sun's gone and its raining again, so lets make a coffee and have some cake instead 
Perhaps there's something to be said for "Lens Monogamy" (the practice of having only one lens in any particular focal length). Although that probably won't go down well with the bunch of promiscuous serial lens adulterers on MF Lenses (me included, of course).
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
I noticed a long time ago that the more of any one type of lens I had, the less I would use any of them. Shall I take the Junkagon 1.4/50, or the Fuzzinar 1.7/55, or the Sphericrap 1.8/55, or the Luxanor 2/58, or the Dimalux 1.9/55, or the Curvigonet 2.2/45, or the Macro-Astigmarol 2.8/55, or the . . . . . . . . ? Er, aw, um, dammit, now the sun's gone and its raining again, so lets make a coffee and have some cake instead
Perhaps there's something to be said for "Lens Monogamy" (the practice of having only one lens in any particular focal length). Although that probably won't go down well with the bunch of promiscuous serial lens adulterers on MF Lenses (me included, of course). |
For a while now I have contemplated getting a 180mm Elmar-R (f/4.0) in addition to the 180mm Elmarit-R II (f/2.8 ), because the former is such a light, compact lens (540 gr). But the Elmarit-R II is so compact and light itself (810g), it hardly makes sense. The old Elmarit-R type 1 that I owned weighed about 1325 g, so perhaps I still have the feeling based on that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There are all sorts of reasons I keep more than one lens in each focal length, although I'm trying hard to pare down my collection, already I got rid of a lot of lenses, I'm currently selling of all my zooms (apart from my Konica ones) and trying out lenses to find lesser performers to cull from the herd. For example, today I tried out the tiny Palinar (Tokina) t-mount 4/100 and it's okay, not bad, but suffers from lower contrast and is quite soft wide open, decent performer at f8. I'm not keeping it though as I have a Zeiss Cardinar 4/100 and a Meyer 2.8/100 which are both significantly better lenses and not much larger, in the case of the Cardinar actually slightly smaller.
It's fun to try out different lenses, and certainly a good way of learning how to spot a really good lens.
Light was bad today, low cloud and dim so I couldn't do the long range landscape shots I wanted to try with these 135mm lenses. Instead I just shot some daffodils in a vase, both wide open.
A:
B:
I think both lenses perform very well, by way of comparison, here's a similar shot with the Palinar 4/100 wide open, a medicore result, a little soft with some glow and low contrast:
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm still struggling to discern much difference between these two lenses but I would say A is a little warmer and B has a slight edge in sharpness and contrast.
No-one had a go at guessing what they are yet...
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixland
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 577
Expire: 2012-07-29
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nixland wrote:
Do a flare test Ian ... both the sun on the frame and out of frame 
_________________
Carl Zeiss Jena: Biotar 58/2 1Q, DDR Pancolar 80/1.8 MC, Biotar 75/1.5, Biotar 10cm/2, DDR Sonnar 135/3.5 MC
Carl Zeiss C/Y: Planar 50/1.4 T*, Planar 85/1.4 T*, Planar 100/2 T*, Sonnar 135/2.8 T*
Leica: Summicron-R 35/2 v1, Summicron-R 50/2, Summilux-R 80/1.4, Summicron-R 90/2
Pentax: A 50/1.2
Minolta: Rokkor MC 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 85/1.7, Rokkor MC 100/2, MD 200/2.8
Olympus: Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2, Zuiko 50/1.2, Zuiko MC Auto-T 85/2, Zuiko Auto-T 100/2
Nikon: Nikkor 28/2.8 Ais, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikkor 105/1.8, 300/2.8 ED (Ais)
Canon: FD 50/1.2 L, FD 85/1.2 L
Sony: 135/2.8 STF
Jupiter: 85/2 Alu
Cyclop: 85/1.5
Meyer-Optic: Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5
Samyang: 8/3.5 FE, 14/2.8, 85/1.4, 85/1.4 UMC
FOR SALE
Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 10cm/2 || Carl Zeiss ZE Distagon 28/2 || Minolta Rokkor MD 35/1.8 || Rokkor-X MC 85/1.7 || Rokkor MD 85/1.7 || Olympus Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2 || Olympus 100/2 || Nikon Nikkor 35/1.4 || Canon: FD 55/1.2 || Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 VMC || Tamron: 90/2.5 SP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I will try that, as soon as the sun appears! Shooting opportunities with good light are very limited here this time of year, sadly.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 705
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
It's not necessary to wait for sun. Just put something on window-sill and shoot against the window. It's more real life test than shooting against the sun. Look at the owl images in this my test.
_________________
.: APO-Maniac :. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks brunner, your 135mm test was amazing.
What will the window sill test show? Contrast mainly?
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 705
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
myself  wrote: |
| Third test is my torture backlighting situations and close distance sharpness test. Check how well the lens retains its contrast in this situation and how does the contrast change when stopping down. |
Some tele-lenses shows good contrast in this situation at full aperture, but when stopped down, the contrast is lost.
_________________
.: APO-Maniac :. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
