| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: ZD 14-42 (KIT) vs. CZJ Flektogon 4/20 (on Olympus E510) |
 |
|
yadisl wrote:
I know it's unfair comparison, but I can't help it 
As you can see, it is not so serious test. Have fun.
Night shot from my balcony (T=4 sec, f/4, ISO 100)
I will try to do blind test here so, let's call it shot 'A' and 'B'. I will disclose what is A and B later (you can see it in the metadata though) 
A
B
I will post other samples tomorrow when it is sunny.
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
what a difference...
the Oly kit must be a good lens 
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
A large difference.
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
It surprise me also - but it is in f/4 and slow speed.
Wait until sunrise I will shot f/8 and we can see the real difference
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
That's an interesting observation - but why shouldn't we use a wide angle lens at night at full aperture? 
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
It is true Rino, the Flek lost in the coating but is sharper
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
| francotirador wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
It is true Rino, the Flek lost in the coating but is sharper |
There must be something wrong with my monitor, or my spectacles, because the 2nd picture, the one taken with the kit lens, looks distinctly sharper than the first.
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| sichko wrote: |
| francotirador wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
It is true Rino, the Flek lost in the coating but is sharper |
There must be something wrong with my monitor, or my spectacles, because the 2nd picture, the one taken with the kit lens, looks distinctly sharper than the first. |
in the area highlights, the Zuiko is better (coating) but in areas of medium and low light I think it's better Flek.
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
I took the shot at the same spot this morning:
All pictures taken with ISO 200, f/11, T=1/40 sec
2 versions: without and with 'auto-contrast' in Photoshop.
Without auto-contrast
A
B
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
With auto contrast
A
B
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
What do you think?
By the way both shots taken with sunny day WB - that explains the blue cast.
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 6622
Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Could you please provide some 100% crops from the corners and centre of these photos?
_________________
Graham - Moderator 
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| sichko wrote: |
There must be something wrong with my monitor, or my spectacles, because the 2nd picture, the one taken with the kit lens, looks distinctly sharper than the first. |
Why must there be something wrong?
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6950
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
The 1st night shot just looks out of focus to me. The day shots look about equal in terms of IQ, but have different qualities.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
Minimum difference favoring Flek, but very small. In areas of midtone. Flektogon is possible that the MC has better performance.
Zuiko is a great lens. I'm looking for the 24mm.
Greetings
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
That's an interesting observation - but why shouldn't we use a wide angle lens at night at full aperture? |
Why ?
1- Full aperture doesn't the best about sharpness in wide angle lenses (and in a lot more too). Benefits the flat of dark zones 'cos the lost of sharpness and the OOF.
2- At wide open, there are some problems to focus the image. The most usefull is the use of the prefocus system.
3- In the CZJ 4/40 in particular, the single coat do more complicated the rendering in the high lights into de pic.
Regards, Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| Shrek wrote: |
| Could you please provide some 100% crops from the corners and centre of these photos? |
All the comparisions are usefull, in differents grades. And this is one usefull too.
But the images with the CZJ 4/20, if you wanto to take the best possibles with it, they must be takken with the F/ 16 aperture. Between the F/16 and the F/11 or the F/22 are a lot of differences in center and corners IQ.
This was a constant in the three CZJ 4/20 that I had (now only one).
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
| scsambrook wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
Till I see, the A has more flare. I can't see any other difference.
F/4? The zeiss is wide open. I think that it isn't the best way to use this lens in the night and with strong lights.
Rino. |
That's an interesting observation - but why shouldn't we use a wide angle lens at night at full aperture? |
Why ?
1- Full aperture doesn't the best about sharpness in wide angle lenses (and in a lot more too). Benefits the flat of dark zones 'cos the lost of sharpness and the OOF.
2- At wide open, there are some problems to focus the image. The most usefull is the use of the prefocus system.
3- In the CZJ 4/40 in particular, the single coat do more complicated the rendering in the high lights into de pic.
Regards, Rino. |
Thanks Rino, but how does that affect the comparison? Apart from the zoom lens being multi-coated and being stopped down by 1/3 stop everything else seems like a level playing field to me.Interesting to see something being unexpectedly "better" than than the 20mm Flek, don't you think?  Or maybe that sample has a problem ...
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Oh Stephen, I didn't understand before. Excuse me.
The best comparision is between the lens itself. Which is the best pics that we can take with it and what is the one that we had taken. I hope to be clear but my english......
The comparision to know What to avoid and what to look for.
The comparision between the zuiko and the CZJ perhaps don't let us to know about what is the better but let us to know where use the CZJ, effects of the single coat in it, how is the best way to use it in the night and under the sun too. What yes and what not to express to the maximun the best characteristics of the lens.
Use and note, use and note, use and note, use and note. . . . . . .
Regards, Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Hi Rino!
Your English is fine - I understand exactly what you're saying and I agree with you entirely. All lenses have their strengths and many have some weaknesses - and some have many weaknesses. Yes, use and note ... an excellent philosophy.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
Interesting discussion going on ...
As you already notice: A=Flektogon; B=Zuiko Digital.
What I think is unfair in this comparison is the different format used by the Flek. They have to cover much-much bigger area than the Zuiko (2x diagonal = 4 x the area), so it means the comparison is a bit like using MF format lenses on 135. The more fair comparison will be on Full Frame.
In this regard I can't disagree with Wrotniak and Olympus about using 135 lenses on 4/3 format can be not so wonderful (except for some exceptional legendary lenses or to get access to much cheaper alternatives than pro-lines Zuiko Digital lenses).
Or using this Flektogon with tilt/shift adapter on 4/3 may be an interesting project - may be for creating a panorama?
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: Another sample from Flektogon 4/20 |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
