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

Axial CA of manual lenses - test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 pm    Post subject: Axial CA of manual lenses - test Reply with quote
135mm lenses

Here is my fast test of axial (bokeh) CA. The samples are crops from the well-known AF test chart:






Jupiters seems to be the best to me. I included 100/2.8 Trioplan and its results are pretty good, too (if you don't mind softer image).

Last edited by no-X on Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with your conclusions, Spiratone looks horrible, Pentacon looks quite bad, the Jupiters and Trioplan look good.
Thanks for the test!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tested almost all of my 50mm lenses. It would take quite a lot of time to make comparision table, like for the 135mm lenses (maybe later), so I'll only post short summary. Maybe some people will hate me after reading this:

Tested lenses:

1. Voigtlander Color-Ultron
2. MC Pancolar 50/1.8 (Zeiss made)
3. MC Pancolar 50/1.8 (Pentacon made)
4. Pancolar 55/1.4
5. MC Pentacon 50/1.8
6. Biotar T 58/2
7. Primoplan V 58/1.9
8. Trioplan 50/2.9
9. S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
10. S-M-C Macro 50/4.0
11. MC Cosinon 55/1.4 (Tomioka 55/1.4)
12. Tomioka Yashinon 55/1.2
13. Helios 77M 50/1.8
14. Helios MC 44-3 58/2
15. MC Volna 50/2.8 Macro
16. Industar 50-2 50/3.5

I'll speak only about axial ("bokeh") CA - nothing more.
  • almost all fast lenses are pretty craps
  • all Biotar-based lenses are craps, too (Biotars, Helioses)
  • Pentacon-made Pancolar is Pancolar optically
  • Pancolar and Ultron are worse than Pentacon Shocked
  • for some lenses helps to stop them down a bit, but slower lenses are generally a bit better
  • the only acceptable results under f/2 produced Pentacon 50/1.8 and Primoplan 58/1.9 (both lenses are Meyer designs!)
  • as for f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, all of them are equal (crappy wide-opened), at f/2.8 the best is Pancolar 55/1.4, the worst Tomioka 55/1.2. Cosinon and Takumar are very similar.

  1. the best (almost apochromatic) are the cheapest lenses: Industar 50-3.5 and Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9 Shocked
  2. 2nd place: Volna-9 Macro 50/2.8 and S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4
  3. 3rd place: Pentacon MC 50/1.8 and Meyer Primoplan 58/1.9
  4. huge disillusion: all Zeiss lenses Shocked


I'm awaiting, that some members will say, that I can have bad copy of... etc. - thats exactly what I'm reading anytime when any Zeiss lens is outperformed by any other lens (Pancolar 50/1.8 by Takumar 50/1.4, Sonnar 135/3.5 by Jupiter 37AM 135/3.5 etc.). No, I have 3 Pancolars 50/1.8, 2 Pancolars 55/1.4, 3 Sonnars 135/3.5 and there are no optical differences between those coppies. There are simply some lenses, which can be better in some ways than Zeiss lenses Wink

left: pancolar 50/1.8
right: pentaconc 50/1.8


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
I'm awaiting, that some members will say, that I can have bad copy of...

Laughing

Last edited by poilu on Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
I tested almost all of my 50mm lenses. It would take quite a lot of time to make comparision table, like for the 135mm lenses (maybe later), so I'll only post short summary. Maybe some people will hate me after reading this:

Tested lenses:

1. Voigtlander Color-Ultron
2. MC Pancolar 50/1.8 (Zeiss made)
3. MC Pancolar 50/1.8 (Pentacon made)
4. Pancolar 55/1.4
5. MC Pentacon 50/1.8
6. Biotar T 58/2
7. Primoplan V 58/1.9
8. Trioplan 50/2.9
9. S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
10. S-M-C Macro 50/4.0
11. MC Cosinon 55/1.4 (Tomioka 55/1.4)
12. Tomioka Yashinon 55/1.2
13. Helios 77M 50/1.8
14. Helios MC 44-3 58/2
15. MC Volna 50/2.8 Macro
16. Industar 50-2 50/3.5

I'll speak only about axial ("bokeh") CA - nothing more.
  • almost all fast lenses are pretty craps
  • all Biotar-based lenses are craps, too (Biotars, Helioses)
  • Pentacon-made Pancolar is Pancolar optically
  • Pancolar and Ultron are worse than Pentacon Shocked
  • for some lenses helps to stop them down a bit, but slower lenses are generally a bit better
  • the only acceptable results under f/2 produced Pentacon 50/1.8 and Primoplan 58/1.9 (both lenses are Meyer designs!)
  • as for f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, all of them are equal (crappy wide-opened), at f/2.8 the best is Pancolar 55/1.4, the worst Tomioka 55/1.2. Cosinon and Takumar are very similar.

  1. the best (almost apochromatic) are the cheapest lenses: Industar 50-3.5 and Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9 Shocked
  2. 2nd place: Volna-9 Macro 50/2.8 and S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4
  3. 3rd place: Pentacon MC 50/1.8 and Meyer Primoplan 58/1.9
  4. huge disillusion: all Zeiss lenses Shocked


I'm awaiting, that some members will say, that I can have bad copy of... etc. - thats exactly what I'm reading anytime when any Zeiss lens is outperformed by any other lens (Pancolar 50/1.8 by Takumar 50/1.4, Sonnar 135/3.5 by Jupiter 37AM 135/3.5 etc.). No, I have 3 Pancolars 50/1.8, 2 Pancolars 55/1.4, 3 Sonnars 135/3.5 and there are no optical differences between those coppies. There are simply some lenses, which can be better in some ways than Zeiss lenses Wink

left: pancolar 50/1.8
right: pentaconc 50/1.8



HI!!

Excelent job. Thanks, it's very informative.

Thanks for sharing yor time and effort with us.

I don't know what importance has these dates into the IQ, perhaps a lot.

I recognize that when I did (laboratory did) a copy of @ 100 x 70 taken with 1,8/50 pancolar showing a tourist favorite bridge, it had a green band at the brigde contours. At 30 x 40 I had not problems.

All of my copies of pentacon 1,8/50 didn't and don't outperformer the IQ of my copies of pancolar 1,8/50. The inverse is.

For me, 1,8/50 Pancolar outperformer the 1,4/50 tak in sharpness at F/8, 11 and 16, both equals at F/5,6 and Tak better at F/2, 2.8 and 4. Both craps at F/1,8. Bokeh, i like panc more.

I can't collaborate with nothing else. Rino.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This comparision doesn't say anything about sharpness, contrast and similar factors. However, absence of axial CA is one of the factors, which create more pleasant bokeh. If you take pictures at f/5-f/8, majority of the lenses will create nice results, but purple/green-fringe around highlights or on IF-OOF transitions can appear..

Majority of the lenses, which had the best results, are considered as good macro lenses or lenses with good bokeh (Volna, Industar, Primoplan...). So I think that my results quite correspond to reality.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The situation is quite different when these lenses are used for b&w photography, of course. Smile

Thanks for doing these tests though. I don't like axial/longitudinal CA either.
(My Canon EF70-210 3.5-4.5 has it too. Confused )

Benjamin


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When I showed the results to by brother and said, that the best and axial-color-free ale old Industar and Trioplan, he replied, that the reason is, that they were designed for B/W photography and because of that they don't create any additional colors Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess that Axial CA is a given in fast lenses. Pentax has just released one of its best lenses, namely the SMC Pentax DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM. This lens is a dream: super sharp and contrasty wide open, but it does suffer of Axial CA. Only slow lenses and true apochromatic lenses will not have this "problem".


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
portrait lenses: wide-open, f/2 and f/4

as expected, Meyer is the best, again Smile

Vivitar results cannot be compared to others, beacause the samples were taken from much closer distance (I wasn't able to focus at 1m neither with extension ring or without)

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