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

First tests to see if the CZJ135mm f3.5 is something special
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
...it's not a waste of time for me as when I want to use a 135mm lens, I want to know the best lens to take with me for sharpness, pop and bokeh (maybe I can get all three in one lens . Wink )

It's waste of time and money. If you want all above mentioned, just buy CZ Sonnar 2.8/135 for C/Y and sell all others... Cool


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
...it's not a waste of time for me as when I want to use a 135mm lens, I want to know the best lens to take with me for sharpness, pop and bokeh (maybe I can get all three in one lens . Wink )

It's waste of time and money. If you want all above mentioned, just buy CZ Sonnar 2.8/135 for C/Y and sell all others... Cool


Well of course I will get it, if I see one going cheap at the boot sale. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
...it's not a waste of time for me as when I want to use a 135mm lens, I want to know the best lens to take with me for sharpness, pop and bokeh (maybe I can get all three in one lens . Wink )

It's waste of time and money. If you want all above mentioned, just buy CZ Sonnar 2.8/135 for C/Y and sell all others... Cool


According to some, the CZJ 135/3.5 has more pop/3D than the Contax 135/2.8. I have not seen any comparisons proving this right or wrong.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A pretty shot with the CZJ 135mm f3.5 sonnar, I can't complain about the lack of sharpness as it was hand held at 1/125 sec...superia 200. Mind you using my MTL5 for the first time and I was getting some light leaks on some shots similar to my Petri..maybe the sun is hitting my glasses and shining down the viewfinder and getting onto the film, all strange but I can't be bothered to sort it out and probably give the camera to a charity shop.




PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
I was getting some light leaks on some shots similar to my Petri..maybe the sun is hitting my glasses and shining down the viewfinder and getting onto the film

That's virtually impossible. When the mirror pops up it blocks any light entering from the viewfinder. Light leaks must come from the back of the camera, the usual culprit is around the hinge. Alternatively you might be seeing some internal reflections though the lens.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
I was getting some light leaks on some shots similar to my Petri..maybe the sun is hitting my glasses and shining down the viewfinder and getting onto the film

That's virtually impossible. When the mirror pops up it blocks any light entering from the viewfinder. Light leaks must come from the back of the camera, the usual culprit is around the hinge. Alternatively you might be seeing some internal reflections though the lens.


Both cameras had cases around the body, and lenses used on the Petri camera had no problems on another camera..I had a thread on the problem for the Petri and it looks like a problem now with the MTL5 and this German camera has string for most seals.....so what do they both have in common to give intermittent light leaks on mainly the left hand bottom corner (of the shot) Sad


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
this German camera has string for most seals.....so what do they both have in common to give intermittent light leaks on mainly the left hand bottom corner (of the shot) Sad

String seals for the long door edges, yes, but not for the hinge. On my PLC2 there's a strip of felt at the hinge end. Bottom left on the shot would be top right corner in the camera - next to the hinge. I think that's the most likely place. Check the door fits tightly, does the felt look squashed and do the strings go right to the ends of the grooves.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
this German camera has string for most seals.....so what do they both have in common to give intermittent light leaks on mainly the left hand bottom corner (of the shot) Sad

String seals for the long door edges, yes, but not for the hinge. On my PLC2 there's a strip of felt at the hinge end. Bottom left on the shot would be top right corner in the camera - next to the hinge. I think that's the most likely place. Check the door fits tightly, does the felt look squashed and do the strings go right to the ends of the grooves.


The problem should be solvable by just taking shots after sticking duct tape over suspect areas, but wasting film and time to solve the problem cost more than the cameras are worth Wink .....shame really as this MTL5 is in mint condition and I liked the small M42 Petri.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I've retested the CZJ m42 Sonnar 135mm f3.5 against...Canon breechlock 135mm f3.5, Vivitar 70-150@135mm, super Tak 135 f3.5, Meyer zebra 135mm, Kiron 80-200 f4@135mm and Fujinon 135 ebc. And my Epson V750 is just not good enough for scanning to separate very good lenses for resolution tests....anyway enlarging up to about a 8ft picture the Canon, Sonnar, Meyer and Vivitar zoom are close, and if I had to pick a winner it would be the sonnar, this is photographing a subject about 80yards away, close ups and nearer subjects and it could be a different story.
While I was testing I compared the Fujinon 200mm ebc against Canon FDn 200mm and Kiron 80-200mm f4 same problem selecting an area of a 8ft picture for comparison, but I would give first Kiron zoom @200mm, 2nd Canon and 3rd Fuji
Everything was at f8 @ 1/125sec on a tripod with remote (cable) shutter release and film was Fuji superia 200
Finally I will compare the sonnar and Canon with the Yashica ML 135mm and Hexanon AE 135mm..I'll have to swop the film to different cameras for that.

Same scene as above.....difference between winner and loser, picture would be about 8ft wide

Canon FD 135mm f3.5 breechlock


Supertak 135 f3.5


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Well I've retested the CZJ m42 Sonnar 135mm f3.5 against...Canon breechlock 135mm f3.5, Vivitar 70-150@135mm, super Tak 135 f3.5, Meyer zebra 135mm, Kiron 80-200 f4@135mm and Fujinon 135 ebc. And my Epson V750 is just not good enough for scanning to separate very good lenses for resolution tests....anyway enlarging up to about a 8ft picture the Canon, Sonnar, Meyer and Vivitar zoom are close, and if I had to pick a winner it would be the sonnar, this is photographing a subject about 80yards away, close ups and nearer subjects and it could be a different story.
While I was testing I compared the Fujinon 200mm ebc against Canon FDn 200mm and Kiron 80-200mm f4 same problem selecting an area of a 8ft picture for comparison, but I would give first Kiron zoom @200mm, 2nd Canon and 3rd Fuji
Everything was at f8 @ 1/125sec on a tripod with remote (cable) shutter release and film was Fuji superia 200
Finally I will compare the sonnar and Canon with the Yashica ML 135mm and Hexanon AE 135mm..I'll have to swop the film to different cameras for that.

Same scene as above.....difference between winner and loser, picture would be about 8ft wide

Canon FD 135mm f3.5 breechlock


Supertak 135 f3.5



Update:
Well I chose one of the winners of the top group i.e. Canon 135mm f3.5 and compared it with the Yashica ML135mm f2.8 and Hexanon 135mm f3.5 AE.......well the ML was a surprise as it was very close to the top group and I knew from the past that the Hexanon would be a loser. So my choice of a 135mm lens would be the sonnar although at 100yards others could equal it for resolution, but I think overall including close up and pop it is the winner.

Yashica ML 135mm f2.8


Hexanon 135mm f3.5 AE


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, that is very poor compared to my Hexanon EE 3.5/135, makes it looks like a poor lens, which it isn't at all, maybe your copy is damaged?

It should be sharp and have very vivid colours:




Maybe this is just a clear case of film being inferior? All of the 135s I have perform better on my NEX than the results I'm seeing in this thread, to be quite honest.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
erm Don't forget these are crops from blow ups of about 8ft wide, the film grain is hampering the comparison in resolution, so my results don't easily show differences from my good lenses but will show up a poor one........using a fine grain film and getting the negs drum scanned would improve the shots.........................................................

If I showed the picture before the crop it would look like a nice pleasant shot on a Sunday afternoon.

Hexanon 135 f3.5 AE


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, the crops are from prints? I thought they were from the negatives.

Colours of the Hexanon crop have come out muddy, wonder what caused that?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oh, the crops are from prints? I thought they were from the negatives.

Colours of the Hexanon crop have come out muddy, wonder what caused that?



Crops are from negs scanned with my scanner to a mainly software 6670X4540 pixels picture (flatbed scanners really give a true 5mp scan IMO)........ and I didn't waste time making a crop look pretty as I only wanted to see comparison of details. Wink

While I was testing my 135mm and 200mm lenses I also compared the Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 to the Hexanon 50mm f1.7 the results are close but will recheck before posting.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My Canon FD 1.4/50 SSC was crap, not sharp at all wide open and poor contrast, but it does have some fungus so that might have spoilt the IQ somewhat. Just got a 1.4/50 Hexanon but no sun for days here so not been able to test it. Can't say any of the FD lenses I've tried have been very good, 2.8/28 is decent but not in same league as Hexanon 3.5/28, same with FD 1.8/50, decent but nowhere near my 1.8/50 Hexanon.




PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As usual, I'm late going through some threads and I don't have any comments on the seeming difficulties that have turned up in excalibur's test methodology, or the relative virtues of all the [very nice] lenses he owns. But I would suggest an alternative way of testing lenses on film cameras.

It may not suit many people, but for gathering information on how any particular way a lens works, why not use colour reversal film and scrutinise the projected image? Yes, yes, there are two immediate problems: firstly you need a projector with a very good lens (uncommon but not impossible to find these days) and secondly, it's then hard to communicate those results to others. Unless you have them scanned . . . and then the "scanning problems" come into play.

But what one needs to know first of all is how the lens works. Sharpness and the nature of bokeh ( arrgghhh, I mean out of focus effect!) will be essentially the same on film as on digital, and you will also get a good impression of how colour rendering varies between lenses. I know that some lenses do seem to work better or less well on film and digital, but you will at least avoid the question of how much sharpening to apply to the raw file in order to see what the lens is doing.

All you have to do is buy a roll (or two, or three, or four) of whatever Fuji slide film has the highest "recording power" and then make sure you standardise the exposures on your test subject. Ah, yes, you need a reliable meter for that. Or maybe bracket exposures as well if you have to use different cameras. Then send the film off for processing and organise your projector. You'll need a Pradovit (or something similar) with a Colorplan lens. Or the equivalent on a Kodak/Voigtlander/Zeiss projector. Forget the inexpensive 3-element things, they won't do for this. You can get a good Pradovit in the UK for under £30 very often. The best one for this job is the old N12 model. (Reasons supplied on request!)

Then you set the projector up perpendicular to a white wall (you may have to redecorate, if so tell your partner/spouse/parent that white is minimalist cool)) at a distance which gives you a 5 feet long picture (about 1.5 metres) and you sit a foot (30cm) from the screen and peer at what you can see. If you've never done it, you'll be astonished at how much detail there is. From a "good" lens. What you must see though for the test to be valid, is the grain of the film from corner to corner. The Colorplan does do that.

Yes, it's a bit of a bind, but it does work. That's how we used to entertain ourselves where I worked in the late 1960s, our generous boss used to sanction the "occasional" roll of Kodachrome for our photographic education. I think we tested pretty much every top-end camera and lens in the shop that way and learned that it's the combination of virtues that makes a lens interesting to use. Which is what people are still finding. . Smile


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
As usual, I'm late going through some threads and I don't have any comments on the seeming difficulties that have turned up in excalibur's test methodology, or the relative virtues of all the [very nice] lenses he owns. But I would suggest an alternative way of testing lenses on film cameras.

It may not suit many people, but for gathering information on how any particular way a lens works, why not use colour reversal film and scrutinise the projected image? Yes, yes, there are two immediate problems: firstly you need a projector with a very good lens (uncommon but not impossible to find these days) and secondly, it's then hard to communicate those results to others. Unless you have them scanned . . . and then the "scanning problems" come into play.

But what one needs to know first of all is how the lens works. Sharpness and the nature of bokeh ( arrgghhh, I mean out of focus effect!) will be essentially the same on film as on digital, and you will also get a good impression of how colour rendering varies between lenses. I know that some lenses do seem to work better or less well on film and digital, but you will at least avoid the question of how much sharpening to apply to the raw file in order to see what the lens is doing.

All you have to do is buy a roll (or two, or three, or four) of whatever Fuji slide film has the highest "recording power" and then make sure you standardise the exposures on your test subject. Ah, yes, you need a reliable meter for that. Or maybe bracket exposures as well if you have to use different cameras. Then send the film off for processing and organise your projector. You'll need a Pradovit (or something similar) with a Colorplan lens. Or the equivalent on a Kodak/Voigtlander/Zeiss projector. Forget the inexpensive 3-element things, they won't do for this. You can get a good Pradovit in the UK for under £30 very often. The best one for this job is the old N12 model. (Reasons supplied on request!)

Then you set the projector up perpendicular to a white wall (you may have to redecorate, if so tell your partner/spouse/parent that white is minimalist cool)) at a distance which gives you a 5 feet long picture (about 1.5 metres) and you sit a foot (30cm) from the screen and peer at what you can see. If you've never done it, you'll be astonished at how much detail there is. From a "good" lens. What you must see though for the test to be valid, is the grain of the film from corner to corner. The Colorplan does do that.

Yes, it's a bit of a bind, but it does work. That's how we used to entertain ourselves where I worked in the late 1960s, our generous boss used to sanction the "occasional" roll of Kodachrome for our photographic education. I think we tested pretty much every top-end camera and lens in the shop that way and learned that it's the combination of virtues that makes a lens interesting to use. Which is what people are still finding. . Smile


Indeed I could use slide film projected on my Kodak Carousel projector, but I would still have to scan the slides to show results here as whom is going to believe my words without showing some sort of backup on the screen (even if it's not very professional) Wink


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why does it matter what others think? If you're trying to determine which is the best lens for your own use then it's irrelevant.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Ian, at least to the extent that the exercise is principally for your own benefit - but I understand the wish to communicate your findings and supply proof of those findings. As I said, the scanning issue does come back into the equation.

By the way, your Carousel will do fine as long as it has the Projar-S lens of (I think) 90mm focal length - that's the five element one.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why does it matter what others think? If you're trying to determine which is the best lens for your own use then it's irrelevant.


Indeed that's true, but it all started when I wasn't happy about my Vivitar 135mm f2.8 and decided to find the best lens from my collection...and if no one posted any information/findings/results or whatever (about anything) then the net would be of less use.
You say your Canon 50mm f1.4 is inferior, but how do you know it's not you or the lens.......if you go on the net there is overwhelming evidence that it is a very good lens and the way I look at it is:- every site/person in the world can't be misinformed or economical with the truth, so e.g. if 95 people say it's a very good lens and five says it's inferior who would you believe. It works for opinions on the domiplan why not for the Canon 50mm f1.4 eh


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I agree with Ian, at least to the extent that the exercise is principally for your own benefit - but I understand the wish to communicate your findings and supply proof of those findings. As I said, the scanning issue does come back into the equation.

By the way, your Carousel will do fine as long as it has the Projar-S lens of (I think) 90mm focal length - that's the five element one.


The Carousel has Projar 100mm isco gottingen on the lens. Question And yes a flatbed scanner is not the best for testing even if it's a Epson V750pro although some sites do this and compare scans from drum scanners and home scanners.

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3