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

Vario-Sonnar outperforming L lenses :One for poilu
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:28 am    Post subject: Vario-Sonnar outperforming L lenses :One for poilu Reply with quote
Poilu here's one you will appreciate Very Happy
A test showing the Vario-Sonnar 35-70 outperforming several Canon lenses including a reputed L lens:

http://www.robotbreeder.com/LensTests/2008/01/contax-35-70mm-f34-trounces-all-part-1.html

OK, it must be added that this test was done using a crop camera (350D).
The tester in my opinion was not fair enough, as he did say it in small letters just at the bottom of the test page - it should have said it in the beginning.

So the results are somehow to be kept in perspective - the test is good, but only for use on crop cameras. On full frame, it may not correspond to truth anymore.
-


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Except the Sigma and the 60mm Canon the others are for FF also. Yes, this was we don't know the image quality in the corner for a FF camera.
Even this one is not bad (but expensive) http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/261-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-24-85mm-f35-45-n-contax-n-to-canon-ef-review--test-report (its a newer generation).

By the way, photozone.de has a different look. I miss the section where were copared some older MF and AF film cameras. I didn't find it here.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Orio but I checked this test one year ago; this test is inconsistent, this guy cannot focus.

I trust more place like this
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm
Arianne Dubois wrote:
I know about the MTF tests this website is based on. I took part of doing those


you miss my passionate answer in the other post

poilu wrote:
The 35 2.8 have 6.2 border at F4 where the 35-70 have 6.3 border at F3.4
At F5.6 the 35-70 have border 8.3 where the maximum of the 35 at any aperture is 7.4

Your best lens the planar 100 F2 need also to close to F5.6 to reach 8.3 if it say something to you.
Your second best lens the 135 F2 never pass 8.2
The makro planar 100 never go over 8 if you ever wonder
Even the planar 50 1.4 need also to close to F5.6 to reach 8.4

center of 35-70 wide open is 8.7 where fixed 35 need 5.6 to have this level
8.7 is a performance not many fixed lenses can dream about
YASHICA 28 don't go over 8 at any aperture, YASHICA 24 don't go over 8.4 at any aperture

at 50mm the 35-70 give 9 wide open where YASHICA 50 don't go over 8.4 at any aperture


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The last lines I read from you on the subject were that you don't care about the MTF... Twisted Evil

I know well the site of Il Prode. The MTFs there have as good thing that they cover all apertures not just the wide open and best one like Zeiss. BUT... they have a serious limitation compared to Zeiss': Zeiss features three levels of resolution (10mm, 20mm and 40mm), which account for the lens behaviour at different levels of enlargement - another way of speaking of macrocontrast and microcontrast if you prefer - the Prode MTFs only present one single data, and what is worse, they don't tell which frequency the MTF tests were made at - this is a major omission, one that in my opinion disputes the credibility of the tests, because it is no good to have all that data, if you don't have a unity of measure to compare it with.
-


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:

Even this one is not bad (but expensive)


Yes that 24-85 is the N version of the previous 28-85 of C/Y line.
Reputedly a better lens than the 28-85 but let's not forget that the 28-85 is also an excellent lens, very close in performance to the 35-70.
The advantage of N version for a Canon user is that the mount can be replaced including electronics to make it become an autofocus EF lens, for those who can not really do without the autofosucks... Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The last lines I read from you on the subject were that you don't care about the MTF...


MTF are measured by human and even Zeiss say it can have up to 30% variation between operator.
MTF are usually measured at 1:20 that mean 48x72 cm subject, you know that a lens doesn't perform the same at infinite and it is the reason why distortion seems big on some zeiss graph but they would be near 0 at infinite.
The horizontal grid measure 30 mm, it's a circle of 60mm way bigger than a 24x36 and the extreme of the graph are out of film
Many says you can understand the bokeh by analyzing tangential sagittal but I don't agree with those theory
I care about MTF but not too much. It's a indication but not enough to know a lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss states clearly that their MTFs are performed at infinity focus.

20 lines per millimeter are not enough to determine the highest resolving power of a lens. Zeiss uses 40 lines per millimeter as higher density (lower curve), Canon 50 lines per millimeter.
IF the Prode MTFs are taken at 20 lines per millimeter then they are not a faithful representation of the resolving power of a lens.

If somebody wonders at these figures, let me remind you that even a very old lens such as the Helios-44 (made in the 50s) surpasses the limit of 40 lines per millimeter in its centre.
This shows how inadequate a measuring of 20 lines per millimeter is.

-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1