| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject: COMPARISON: Zuiko ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 Mk.I vs. Leica-R 35/2.8 |
 |
|
yadisl wrote:
Both setting: 1/50 sec, f/4, ISO 200, WB: SUNNY
Only resize (bicubic) in GIMP.
First Zuiko:
_________________
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: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
Then the Leica ...
_________________
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: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
Despite Olympus' theory of telecentric lens design and designing 4/3 standard from the ground up, I think some old primes still had the cutting edge.
What do you guys think?
_________________
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 |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Leica to me without doubt.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsmlogger
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Location: Athens, Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dsmlogger wrote:
The Leica seems to be a tad better in the center but the Zuiko is by far better in the corners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
| dsmlogger wrote: |
| The Leica seems to be a tad better in the center but the Zuiko is by far better in the corners. |
Ahh, you're right! I don't see it until you mentioned it. Thanks!
_________________
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: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
| Attila wrote: |
| Leica to me without doubt. |
+1
User experience, color, sharpness (center), etc ...
Even the blurred edges makes it suitable for BW portrait 
_________________
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 |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
| yadisl wrote: |
Despite Olympus' theory of telecentric lens design and designing 4/3 standard from the ground up, I think some old primes still had the cutting edge.
What do you guys think? |
I don't think much of it except: what aperture was the Leica shot at? The telecentricity of the Zuiko is obvious: sharp into the extreme borders. The contrast and color saturation is clearly better on the Leica.
Does the corner sharpness of the Leica improve at apertures like f/8?
I think 35mm is a bit of a weird focal length for m4/3's anyway: a bit short for portraits and not suitable as a walkaround lens like a 17/18/25mm would be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 929
Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
Sorry guy's.. but what Elmarit Version you are talking about??
And on a mft- cam discussing the edges??
Dont understand....
Cheers
Henry
_________________
some light-painting lens stuff.. 
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
| hinnerker wrote: |
Sorry guy's.. but what Elmarit Version you are talking about??
And on a mft- cam discussing the edges??
Dont understand.... |
You've never heard of corner smearing with Leica M and other rangefinder lenses on m4/3's camera's and the reason why Olympus makes their lens designs telecentric? It has everything to do with the angle at which the light hits the sensor in the corners, which can be very steep with non-telecentric lenses. Digital sensors with microlenses don't respond well to this, whereas film didn't really have that problem. This is also the reason why it was so difficult to make the sensor of the Leica M9 (they did something special with offset microlenses I believe, to prevent dark and smeared corners).
Edit: oops, I thought yadisl was using a Leica M lens, but it's an R. Then I don't really understand why the corners look so bad. That shot with the Leica must have been take wide open then?
Last edited by AhamB on Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| AhamB wrote: |
| It has everything to do with the angle at which the light hits the sensor in the corners, which can be very steep with non-telecentric lenses. Digital sensors with microlenses don't respond well to this, whereas film didn't really have that problem |
yes, very important remind
it is important to test a lens on film before sending it to bin
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robertro
Joined: 14 May 2009
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject: digital sensors don't respond well? |
|
|
robertro wrote:
I was curious about what this means. On the sample above with the Leica lens, I see corner and edge softness, while the Olympus lens is sharp throughout - is the softness what is expected from a non-telecentric lens? ...and if it is a softness, how does this happen? Is it refraction because light is hitting the sensor and the filter at oblique angles and bouncing around or...? I suppose I'll have to go re-read the 4/3 site, but although I am convinced of the high quality of the entire line of Olympus Digital lenses, I have alway assumed that "telecentricity" was just a new bit of jargon introduced to confuse me  which I began to ignore as I discovered more and more MF lenses that worked well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| robertro wrote: |
| I see corner and edge softness, while the Olympus lens is sharp |
check this link
we could conclude that telecentric lenses are needed for digital
but sensor have also other problems like vignetting
vigneting is much worst in digital than film and have the same origin, sensor only see straight rays
when the sensor microlenses will 'see' non straight light, non telecentric lenses will work fine, like they work today on film
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tkbslc
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 194
Location: Utah, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tkbslc wrote:
Can't really tell from just a shot of leaves at 1/50 sec shutter speed, can you?
_________________
Canon 30D + some AF and MF lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
