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

TEST: 1.4/50mm lenses compared
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO)....


I tend to agree, however, doesn't that give lenses with more recessed front elements unfair advantage?


Maybe they are better designed, so any advantage would not be 'unfair'. It's still telling you something about the lenses performance. Lots of lenses absolutely need a lens hood whilst some are great without them.


Agreed. And as kiddo says:
kiddo wrote:
probably the difference on the depth of the hood for these lenses wouldn`t be that big as topcor re 58mm 1.4 wich is about 2cm only if I remember correctly


My point is hoods prevent omnipresent stray light from entering the lens, thus improving contrast and reducing flare. A more level playing field as it were. Perhaps tests without hoods may show only coating effectiveness differences.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2024 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO)....


I tend to agree, however, doesn't that give lenses with more recessed front elements unfair advantage?


Maybe they are better designed, so any advantage would not be 'unfair'. It's still telling you something about the lenses performance. Lots of lenses absolutely need a lens hood whilst some are great without them.


Agreed. And as kiddo says:
kiddo wrote:
probably the difference on the depth of the hood for these lenses wouldn`t be that big as topcor re 58mm 1.4 wich is about 2cm only if I remember correctly


My point is hoods prevent omnipresent stray light from entering the lens, thus improving contrast and reducing flare. A more level playing field as it were. Perhaps tests without hoods may show only coating effectiveness differences.


I'll have to look into hoods a bit more seriously.
Practical, personal experience agrees with what is quoted above:
An in-frame light source is not required to skew the image with every 50 1.4 I've tried.
Another thing I've noticed is these semi-fast lenses seem to be a bit on the susceptible side to dirty, or dusty UV/skylight filters.
I still have to get around to some serious checking with an L-37 C filter one of these days...

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As I said before: the main issue here with my test images was/is the rather hazy weather when testing the lenses, and not the presence/absence of a dedicated lens hood (which has a very limited effectiveness as long as the light comes from the front, as in this case).

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2