View previous topic :: View next topic |
Which set of pictures has the best image? |
Set 1 |
|
80% |
[ 16 ] |
Set 2 |
|
20% |
[ 4 ] |
|
Total Votes : 20 |
|
Author |
Message |
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:26 am Post subject: Fast FD 55mm Competition. Guess the lens! |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
In todays competition, we have two contenders for the Ultimate FD 55mm lens:
The Contender
Weighing in at 565g, and released in 1973, the classic FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C!
With an original price of 50,000 yen, and comprising of 7 lens elements, this lens is both affordable and of excellent build quality. Often found on ebay for ~140 euro, it has found a new lease on life on micro four third format cameras.
Versus.
The Big-Pricetag
Weighing in at a heavier 575g and released in 1975, it has been said that Canon used every trick they knew when building the FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical!
Priced at 80,000 yen, this was once the most expensive standard lens in the world, and is comprised of 8 lens elements, including one aspherical surface, and a kind of floating construction where the last lens stayed in postion and the rest seven elements moved as a group when focusing. Found on ebay for ~350 euro, this is no paperweight!
In this competition, both lenses were used wide open on a Panasonic G1. Two sets of pictures will be posted, and you, the viewers will have your chance to vote on which set you think is the best. Please post your opinions too!
After 10 days, I will reveal the identities of both lenses. Let the best lens win!
Last edited by dnhkng on Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:04 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
PART A
Set 1 : Set 2
Set 1 : Set 2
Set 1 : Set 2
Last edited by dnhkng on Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:37 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
PART B
Set 1 : Set 2
Last edited by dnhkng on Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:39 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
I have edited the order of the pictures to make side-by-side comparisons easier. Please judges pictures on all criteria, sharpness, color, contrast and artistic feel. And post opinions!
Last edited by dnhkng on Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:23 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
More info:
I have taken these pictures on a good tripod, and used the zoom feature on the G1 to carefully manually focus on the same object in both pictures. I don't have a remote shutter release, so I used the 10 second timer to take the images. I left on auto white balance for both sets of pictures. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
A suggestion: since most people uses LCD monitors, that change luminosity with the viewing angle, it is best, for comparison purposes, to put the two images to be compared on the same eye level, rather than one after the other.
Example
A B
A B
A B
instead of
A
B
A
B
A
B _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
When seeing the images at the same height, the differences are minimal. I would say set 1 has a little better contrast, but it also has slightly worse CA.
I'd call it a draw.
hm... there is no draw in the voting options. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I completely agree with Orio. A = more contrast, B = less axial CA. Not easy to decide. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
Ok, the photos have been arranged for better viewing. So far it looks like there isn't a clear winner, even though one lens is famous and costs double or triple the price of the other. This is good news for bargain hunters.
But so far, there has been over 80 views of this thread and only 3 votes
Orio: there can be only one. Two lenses enter, but only one will leave! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Well, I dragged the photos to my desktop and did a back-forth-back-forth comparison in Bridge, easier to spot the differences when you see what is changing though framing stays the same.
Yes, I voted. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hk300
Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 1041 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hk300 wrote:
so ... these pics were made full open?
I have the non-Aspherical version, and i am totally not impressed by this lens when used full open. _________________ No longer member , please don't try to contact to him |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
yep, both are at F1.2
neither lens seems any near as good as my 85mm F1.2 aspherical though, but thats for another thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rusty
Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 435 Location: Mosselbay, South Africa
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rusty wrote:
Guess the lens.......hmmm first set non aspherical second set aspherical
But , i like the first set more ! _________________ Daniel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
As an owner of the FD 1.2/55mm S.S.C. (non Asph.) and after testing some 1.2 lenses, i prefer and did vote for this version (1st Set), because it gives me more contrast in low light situations if there are no direct lights in the image and no reflecting metal surfaces. I prefer lenses, which gives me strong contrasts and sharpness.
1.2 lenses for me are divided in two categories... one categorie is low contrast and less sharpness wide open like the Bokeh-Monster Minolta Rokkor 1.2/58 PG or your shown 1.2/55mm Asperical, which is also not as sharp and contrasty as the normal 1.2/55mm S.S.C.
IMHO you can either get from a 1.2 a good sharpness and contrast or you lost this and get the advantage of less CA...
Just my 2 Cents after testing some 1.2 Lenses like the Rokkor, Canon FD 1.2/55mm, Porst 1.2/55mm and in the next weeks my new SMC Pentax 1.2/50mm Takumar, which should be the symbiosis of both... will see..
Cheers
Henry _________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
+1 for the first set, clearly with a better contrast ...
But, frankly, cannot guess between the two lenses ... Unless ... FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C for the first set and the Aspherical for the second ? _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
hk300 wrote: |
so ... these pics were made full open?
I have the non-Aspherical version, and i am totally not impressed by this lens when used full open. |
And which lens at 1.2 would impress you?
Open for any hint.
Cheers
Henry _________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well, my internet connection is having problems right now, so maybe I can blame it. But I'm not seeing any photos at all. Just rectangles with red dots inside, where the photos should be.
I went to the galleries and loaded several threads there to see if I'd have the same problem, but no. The images there displayed fine, although the pages took a long time to load (my internet connection problem, not mflenses).
So, did something happen to the photos? Or is my internet connection showing yet another problem? Please let me know if you can see the photos because I will be calling my ISP in the morning, and I want to be able to list all the problems I'm having.
Thanks.
BTW, dnhkng, I think you should have included the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 in this comparison as long as you were comparing Canon 55/1.2s -- if you had access to one, that is. I have an FL 55/1.2, and I also have an FD 85/1.2 Aspherical. My FL 55/1.2 isn't as sharp as the 85/1.2 Asph, but it ain't bad. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
Hi Michael,
Just checked, the pictures show right now ... _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
Well, with the voting going so clearly in one direction, I may as well reveal the identities of the lenses now.
Set 1 is the FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C
and
Set 2 is the FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical
It seems that the cheaper lens takes better photos, as judged by the folks on this forum.
I have had a 55mm SSC for a few months now, and when my aspherical version arrive, I was a little surprised by how soft the images seems, and so I started this poll. I wanted to know if the soft feel to the images was countered by the reduced spherical aberration.
I dont feel it is to be honest; I think the high prices commanded by these lenses is mostly due to legend, and the fact that it was one of the earliest consumer aspherical lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
*UPDATE*
Well, I was considering selling one of the lenses, most probably the Aspherical, but I decided to do a few more last minute test shots. This time, the shots are taken with a high contrast background, and the results are interesting. The non-aspherical lens is still sharper, but now overall it seems worse in my opinion Any comments?
S.S.C : Aspherical
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
Here i would say that the Aspherical performs better with such kind of scene ...
Are you looking for a reason to keep both lenses instead of selling one ? _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Interesting. The image on the left appears to be sharper than the right, but it also exhibits quite a lot of flare compared to the right image.
So the right image is the Aspherical? Well, at least flare is well controlled. And that's kinda important in my book. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnhkng
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 Posts: 74
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnhkng wrote:
I have decided to sell the 55mm S.S.C, non-aspherical; its on the marketplace section together with some other lenses I need to sell.
Damn this lumix G1! I just went and bought a FD 24mm F1.4 for 400 euro on impulse, and now I am way over my credit card limit and need to sell a large portion of my FD collection.
This is an expensive hobby |
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
dnhkng wrote: |
This is an expensive hobby |
No, you have been just infected by LBA, as all of us here ...
Cheers _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
wilson.c
Joined: 18 Jan 2010 Posts: 364 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
wilson.c wrote:
Damn! My old FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C is getting a new lease on live after these tests. I've been eyeing the aspherical one for ages and it's good news to hear the non-aspherical version is still very good glass! _________________ Wilson
DSLR: Canon 5DMkII, 500D + Panasonic GF-1
SLR: Canon T90, Canon F1, Canon A1, Canon AE1 + Rolleiflex SL66 + Bronica ETRs
R'finder: Contax G1, G2 + Leica M6, M3 + Contax II
Lenses
M42: Angenieaux 90/1.8
Canon: FD 50/3.5 Macro, FD 80/1.8, FD 80-200L/4
Contax G: CZ Hologon 16/8, CZ Biogon 21/2.8, CZ Biogon 28/2.8, CZ Planar 45/2.0, CZ Sonnar 90/2.8
P-Six: CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8, CZJ Biometar 120/2.8
Contax: Distagon 28/2.8, Distagon 28/2, Planar 85/1.4, Makro-Planar 100/2.8
Others: CZ Sonnar 135/3.5 (Hasselblad V mount)
More little ones to be documented.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|