Revelations, Disappointment: Quick Bellows Lenses Comparison

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

I recently picked up a nearly pristine Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5. I didn't have a lot of time, so I set up a quick test to make sure it worked as good as it looked. Since my D700 won't accept pre-Ai lenses, and I was too impatient to use my F2, I left the M ring off and put the 55 on my PB-4 bellows. I had my Micro 60/2.8D nearby, so I was going to do just compare the two. Then, I decided to throw in a Leica Elmar-R 100/4 Macro (bellows) and a recently acquired Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 75/4 enlarger lens. The 'quick-little' test wasn't so quick anymore, but I didn't have time for a comprehensive test. I used an old lens as the subject of the test and I focused on the white-filled, engraved letters surrounded by black enamel.

The results? Some surprises: a couple pleasant, others not.

I expected the 55/3.5 to be a bit sharper than the 60/2.8. It's quite a bit sharper. Fortunately, the 60/2.8 does a great job as my work lens, which is where it will stay.

While I always appreciated the Leica more than my 60/2.8, here I was very disappointed. Yes, the Leica was sharper than the 60, but not by much. The Micro 55/3.5 was somewhat sharper at 1:1 than the Leica. However, the Leica displayed serious blue/yellow CA at high contrast edges that were just out of focus. I've noticed the CA before, but under prior conditions, it was barely noticeable. Because of the high contrast subject, the fringing of the Leica was horrible, while the 60/2.8 (at 100%) had barely detectable blue/yellow CA.

The 55/3.5 was sharper than the 60/2.8 and the Leica 100/4, but it, too, had minor CA. Viewed at 100%, right at the edge of black/white lines, there was faint red/cyan fringing. As with the 60, there was so little, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

Then there was the Rodagon. Not only was it easily the sharpest lens of the four, but there was absolutely no trace of CA. Then again, that's what the "APO" is for.

In the end, I decided that the 60/2.8 is still quite usable as a work lens, the 55/3.5 is a great little gem that works as good as it looks, and the Rodagon is simply amazing. Then there's the Leica.

Early next month, I'm going to run a more controlled test to sort things out, and I'm going to add my El Nikkors to the test: a 63/2.8, 105/5.6, and 135/5.6. I'd like to test the Schneider, but I still don't have a decent, light-tight adapter for its odd thread size.

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Arninetyes welcome to the forum,I hope you can post some of these results,tests.
in case you are wondering images do not show up in a first post due to an anti spam measure...so if you want to upload them please do! Very Happy

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

Welcome, Arninetyes to the forum.

Interesting result you have there with the 5 lenses. Looking forward for your more control tests.

gillbod · Joined: 24 Aug 2010 Posts: 28

thanks for doing the test. i'm on the search for a good apochromatic lens, and the rodenstock hadn't occurred to me, although i'd like something where i can have a helicoid and focus to infinity. anyway, i digress.

as i see it, most of the aberrations displayed in all these lenses are coming from longitudinal chromatic aberration, i.e. bokeh ca which is affecting the out of focus regions.

the rodenstock (even though its performance seems great) is at an advantage in that all of the image is in focus.

the elmar is showing bad longitudinal ca, but there's not much to go by in judging lateral ca. there's green fringing on the left, and a blueish tinge on the right (really odd to me, i'd expect it to be redder). but this ca is visible because there are large portions of the shot which are out of focus.

the micro nikkor is showing a bit of red-tinging in the area in front of the plane of focus, which is to be expected (as opposed to what the elmar is producing!), but again, it has out of focus areas in it which are showing the areas of longitudinal ca.

the tests show the rodenstock in a very good light, but i'm still curious as to how it might look if things were set up a little bit differently.

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

gillbod,

I've posted a photo taken with the Leica to show that yes, it does take decent images. I took this several months ago of a lens I was going to put up for sale (among others I did sell), using the same PB-4. Of course, this one was in a diffusion box and was taken with better lighting and a bit more care. First pic is the full shot; the second is a 100% crop of a focused area, third is a 100% crop of an out-of-focus area. I just pulled this from a raw file today and used no sharpening in development.

There is barely any sign of fringing, and you have to look very carefully at 100% to see it. Then again, this is nowhere near the magnification of the previously posted shot. Magnification may be the actual limit of this Leica model, despite 'Macro' being part of its name.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Welcome indeed and thanks for this test/comparison. Your results seem in line with various observations about these different lenses over a considerable period. The Rodenstock APO series is well known to be magnificent and your sample certainly supports the conclusion

patrickh

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

Thanks! But, when I redo the comparison with sufficient controls, then I'll be much more confident in the results.

Probably in early September I'll be able to do a better controlled comparison. Based on this last comparison and a bit of experience with all the lenses (except the Micro 55), I think what I'll find will be that all the lenses will have improved sharpness, once I deal with the depth of field. Well, except for the Rodagon. I don't see how I could improve sharpness over the posted pics!

Who knows, maybe I'll toss in a couple more lenses, just for fun!