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

58mm lens test ver. II: wide open to f/8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: 58mm lens test ver. II: wide open to f/8 Reply with quote
I redid my 58mm lens test in a more controlled environment.

The whole scene (at f/8 with the 58mm f/2 Takumar):



I used the following lenses:

- 58mm f/2 Takumar M42 pre-set
- 58mm f/2.4 Takumar M42 pre-set
- CZJ Biotar 58mm f/2 M42 slim type, manual
- Helios-44 58mm f/2, chrome M39, pre-set
- Auto-Takumar 55mm f/2 (to see the differences with the 58mm's)

Hardware: Pentax K-7 on tripod, cable remote, 2s delay (which disables SR), Live View focusing on Winnie's forehead (the "cross"), fixed WB (3250K). I used Christmas lights to make the background a little bit more difficult (and also to provide extra lighting).

The RAW's are developed in Adobe Camera Raw 4.0 with default settings. The pictures were then resampled to 1024 pixels wide in Adobe Photoshop CS3 and consequently saved to JPG (quality level 11).

This series was shot wide open, although I have shot series with each lens from wide open up to and including f/8. Who wants to see all of them? Wink

If I have done something wrong then please let me know Wink

58mm f/2 Takumar


58mm f/2.4 Takumar


58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar


58mm f/2 Helios-44 (chrome)


55mm f/2 Auto-Takumar


Last edited by Spotmatic on Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The same scene at f/2.8.

58mm f/2 Takumar


58mm f/2.4 Takumar


58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar


58mm f/2 Helios-44 (chrome)


55mm f/2 Auto-Takumar


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The same scene at f/4.

58mm f/2 Takumar


58mm f/2.4 Takumar


58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar


58mm f/2 Helios-44 (chrome)


55mm f/2 Auto-Takumar


Last edited by Spotmatic on Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:01 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The same scene at f/5.6

58mm f/2 Takumar


58mm f/2.4 Takumar


58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar


58mm f/2 Helios-44 (chrome)


55mm f/2 Auto-Takumar


Last edited by Spotmatic on Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:13 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The same scene at f/8

58mm f/2 Takumar


58mm f/2.4 Takumar


58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar


58mm f/2 Helios-44 (chrome)


55mm f/2 Auto-Takumar


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A_lot_of images... thanks for the effort. It's interesting to see how the lenses have different kind of rendering.

Sorry, I have no idea about the winner/loser, each lens seem to make nice pictures in right hands Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:36 pm    Post subject: .. Reply with quote
thanks for all the images! Based on your images i would choose the
58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar as "overall-champ". But every lens seems to be a good performer.

bye bye
Pascal


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great test!

I think there is no loser, every lens has it's own character and gives excellent results under right conditions.

e.g. the 58/2.4 Takumar has very interesting results at f/4. On the other hand the 58/2 Takumar has always very pleasant bokeh and it's the winner for me Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
all lenses seem to be fine lenses, I hardly could make out which one I'd prefer.

I do notice the 'cold' colors of the Auto Takumars like I also had noticed of my f3.5/35 and f2/55mm Auto Taks, in contrast to warmer colors of the Biotar and Helios and also later Takumars. I was wondering if the colors rendered by the Auto Taks are similar to Leica colors ( of which I have 0 experience )


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aside from the white balance variances, which on digital are not so primary importance, I would note the following - my opinion of course:

1- The Biotar/Helios (I keep them together since they evidently show to be the same lens) win the wide aperture bokeh war hands down, in my opinion. No competition.

2) the first two Takumars seem to have a slight edge on sharpness (but full size would be needed to speak better about this)

3) regarding bokeh stopped down, all lenses do it good (as it always happen), but again, the Biotar/Helios has a structure and organicity while the Takumars do it - in my opinion - in a slightly more "ethereal" way, which would make more sense wide open, but at f/8, I want solidity and organicity in the bokeh, too.

All in all, my vote goes to the Biotar/Helios.

-


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:23 am    Post subject: OT: colors rendered by lens / white ballance Reply with quote
this maybe a bit off topic, but I have been wondering:
Orio wrote:
Aside from the white balance variances, which on digital are not so primary importance....-

Orio, are the colors rendered by a lens only a matter of white ballance?

I have not been thinking so..
E.g. my copies of Pancolar 1.8/50, Takumar 1.4/50 and Auto Tak. 2/50 render colors very distinctively and I like each for that.
With my PPing skills, which admitedly are limited, I would not be able to simulate the colors rendered by one lens with those coming from either one of the other two.

Should one, in digital age, be able to do that? Even only by adjusting white ballance?

I better stop buying lenses and learn how to use a computer Shocked

best regards,
Andreas

Last edited by kuuan on Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMHO, no winner/loser once "F" is higher than "4". But after adding the "price" factor (actual cost you acquired these lenses), which one is most worthy?
Mike

Last edited by djmike on Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:01 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:30 am    Post subject: Re: OT: colors rendered by lens / white ballance Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

I better stop buying lenses and learn how to use a computer Shocked



Agree if we use DSLR and the IQ is different few.
Disagree becasue we have a batch of SLR.
Wink


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think we all are very similar in performance. It is a matter of personal taste, to me the BIOTAR IS THE BEST.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
djmike wrote:
IMHO, no winner/loser once "F" is higher than "4". But after adding the "price" factor (actual cost you acquired these lenses), which one is most worthy?
Mike


The Takumar 58mm f/2 was the most expensive one (by far). The other lenses (save the 58mm f/2.4) can easily be found.

I think the 58mm f/2.4 Takumar and both the Biotar and Helios would do less well with a more "organic" subject in the bokeh. At least I know from former experiences that the Biotar is Swirly in the right conditions:



The 58mm f/2.4 Takumar sometimes has a similar busy background:



BTW: the white balance was manually fixed with the 58mm f/2 Takumar as a basis.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not much to choose among the lenses shown here. What happened to Primoplan which was shown on the 1st series.

Something interesting I have noted at f8, Biotar and Helios produces different star shape of the ligth source (behind the yellow car).


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Number of beams depends on number of iris blades.

even number of blades (e.g. 6) => number of beams (6)
odd number of blades (e.g. 7) => 2* number of beams (14)


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
Number of beams depends on number of iris blades.

even number of blades (e.g. 6) => number of beams (6)
odd number of blades (e.g. 7) => 2* number of beams (14)


Wow, so in this case, odd number of blades gives a lot more beams. So looking from the photos, biotat has odd number of blades.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
no-X wrote:
Number of beams depends on number of iris blades.

even number of blades (e.g. 6) => number of beams (6)
odd number of blades (e.g. 7) => 2* number of beams (14)


Wow, so in this case, odd number of blades gives a lot more beams. So looking from the photos, biotat has odd number of blades.


Indeed; it's the 17-blade version of the Biotar. It's the middle one in the picture below:



PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:20 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: colors rendered by lens / white ballance Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
this maybe a bit off topic, but I have been wondering:
Orio wrote:
Aside from the white balance variances, which on digital are not so primary importance....-

Orio, are the colors rendered by a lens only a matter of white ballance?

I have not been thinking so..
E.g. my copies of Pancolar 1.8/50, Takumar 1.4/50 and Auto Tak. 2/50 render colors very distinctively and I like each for that.
With my PPing skills, which admitedly are limited, I would not be able to simulate the colors rendered by one lens with those coming from either one of the other two.

Should one, in digital age, be able to do that? Even only by adjusting white ballance?

I better stop buying lenses and learn how to use a computer Shocked

best regards,
Andreas


Why do you extremize my words and start a crusade?
I never meant what you imply.
I was just saying that there are obvious differences in the white balance. It's enough to see the white parts of the images to see that.
Colour rendition is a different matter, it regards how each lens renders the colours once the white balance is adjusted.

Cool down, guy.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: colors rendered by lens / white ballance Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:
this maybe a bit off topic, but I have been wondering:
Orio wrote:
Aside from the white balance variances, which on digital are not so primary importance....-

Orio, are the colors rendered by a lens only a matter of white ballance?

I have not been thinking so..
E.g. my copies of Pancolar 1.8/50, Takumar 1.4/50 and Auto Tak. 2/50 render colors very distinctively and I like each for that.
With my PPing skills, which admitedly are limited, I would not be able to simulate the colors rendered by one lens with those coming from either one of the other two.

Should one, in digital age, be able to do that? Even only by adjusting white ballance?

I better stop buying lenses and learn how to use a computer Shocked

best regards,
Andreas


Why do you extremize my words and start a crusade?
I never meant what you imply.
I was just saying that there are obvious differences in the white balance. It's enough to see the white parts of the images to see that.
Colour rendition is a different matter, it regards how each lens renders the colours once the white balance is adjusted.

Cool down, guy.


I don't think Andreas meant to say it this way...

In this series I have used a fixed white balance of 3250K (actually I used the 58mm f/2 as a starting point). Would it have been better if I had every picture white balanced manually?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:34 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: colors rendered by lens / white ballance Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:
this maybe a bit off topic, but I have been wondering:
Orio wrote:
Aside from the white balance variances, which on digital are not so primary importance....-

Orio, are the colors rendered by a lens only a matter of white ballance?

I have not been thinking so..
E.g. my copies of Pancolar 1.8/50, Takumar 1.4/50 and Auto Tak. 2/50 render colors very distinctively and I like each for that.
With my PPing skills, which admitedly are limited, I would not be able to simulate the colors rendered by one lens with those coming from either one of the other two.

Should one, in digital age, be able to do that? Even only by adjusting white ballance?

I better stop buying lenses and learn how to use a computer Shocked

best regards,
Andreas


Why do you extremize my words and start a crusade?
I never meant what you imply.
I was just saying that there are obvious differences in the white balance. It's enough to see the white parts of the images to see that.
Colour rendition is a different matter, it regards how each lens renders the colours once the white balance is adjusted.

Cool down, guy.


I don't think Andreas meant to say it this way...

In this series I have used a fixed white balance of 3250K (actually I used the 58mm f/2 as a starting point). Would it have been better if I had every picture white balanced manually?


It just isn't a decisive factor from my point of view, in a test with a digital camera.

One should not evaluate the colour rendition based on the white balance.

Of course the fact that you set the K temperature based on the Takumar lens, has caused the Biotar and Helios to display a cooler temperature, because evidently they have a different coating. But this is only a relative quality, it is not absolute, if you calibrated the K temperature on the Biotar it would have been the Takumar to be off-balanced.

I don't understand the need to make radical assumptions such as "should I stop buying lenses and learn computer" when what I made was a simple observation on a very intuitive fact.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I add that if someone wants to include the hue (white balance) in the evaluation of a comparative test, there are only two ways to do it correctly:

1) set the camera to a fixed value that is considered standard (5200 K for sunny outdoors, 2700 K for bulb light indoor) and use it with all tests.

2) use a colour meter to establish the K temperature to use with all tests.

Of course calibrating the K on one lens means that a different lens might be off arbitrarily, while perhaps it wouldn't really be the case.

When one is not sure of the conditions in which a test was held, it is safer to leave white balance out of the evaluation.

Which is something that with digital camera makes also sense, because differently from film, a digital camera (maybe not a P&S, but most reflex for sure) allows you to control the colour temperature at the moment of shooting.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sorry my words must have been badly versed, I should have dropped my last sentence which was supposed to be funny.

I was surprised that you, Orio, seemed to reduce color differences to be a matter of white ballance. But it seems that I had misunderstood, thinking that your remark of white ballance would refer to the differences of color rendition which I had brought into question.

I am a beginner and the differences of color rendition of different lenses has been stunning me. For me personally the other differences in this test seem minor to me, in real shooting life I would choose between the 5 lenses according to their color rendition. ( Form the few photots I have taken with 3.5/35 and 2/55 Auto Taks reds, also blues and greens sometimes stunned me )

In short I am genuinly interested how more experienced lens users like yourself Orio, or anybody else, views the question of color rendition of lenses on dSLR

best regards,
Andreas


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
sorry my words must have been badly versed, I should have dropped my last sentence which was supposed to be funny.
I was surprised that you, Orio, seemed to reduce color differences to be a matter of white ballance.


Maybe I explained myself poorly (?) but I never meant that differences in colour rendition should be reduced to difference in white balance.

If I really thought that, I would have said that the difference in white balance is important.

You can verify that I have said exactly the opposite.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2