| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: Useless comparison, or not? Nº 2 |
 |
|
francotirador wrote:
Here one 135/3.5 Sonnar of U$S 100 and 24/70 Canon L 2.8 of U$S 1500.-
Look, the Flare and the CA.
Without correction. 
_________________
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 |
|
 |
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Isn't it kind of weird to compare a pretty fast zoom lens with a rather slowish tele prime?
Any conclusion about the superiority of manual lenses is untenable.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 414
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
I regularly use the 24-70 for night work and have never seen it's equal for flare control.
Last edited by jjphoto on Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
Isn't it kind of weird to compare a pretty fast zoom lens with a rather slowish tele prime?
Any conclusion about the superiority of manual lenses is untenable. |
The conclusion is not this for my, if not, that an old sonnar is usable perfectly today.
24-70 and one 70-200 they mark the qualit standar for professional works.
For my part I will buy 24-105 L
_________________
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 |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| jjphoto wrote: |
Those 2 images don't show anything about flare control and the exposures seem to be different as the highlights in the first image are overexposed. The 24-70 seems to have lower transmittance than many lenses, probably due to the number of elements, and it doesn't have the best bokeh but it does have the best flare control of ANY lens that I've ever used.
I regularly use the 24-70 for night work and have never seen it's equal for flare control. You would think that a prime with half the number of elements would have better flare control but it doesn't seem to be the case. See below.
http://rigshots.com.au/50_flare_ff.htm
http://rigshots.com.au/50_flare_centre_crop.htm
JJ |
I have used it for fashionable catalogues, and in the high lights, the image burns. The factor of correction is a 1/2 point for 24/70.
I use a hand exposure meter Sekonik.
_________________
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 |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
The second is Sonnar
_________________
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 |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
The effective exposure is clearly different. Blowing out of highlights will happen more easily with a lens with higher contrast though. The Sonnar also has more veiling flare, which makes the tree look brighter.
My recommendation: use UniWB, use the most neutral camera profile and expose to the right, watching that you don't clip the highlights. (Assuming that you shoot in RAW of course.)
Last edited by AhamB on Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Posts: 722
Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
Francotirador: I like your comparisons! I think your point may be that there doesn't look like $1400 worth of difference between these two lenses (which actually are separated by less than a full f-stop).
_________________
"Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 28-50, 28-70, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300, 200-500
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 50-135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
| gaeger wrote: |
| Francotirador: I like your comparisons! I think your point may be that there doesn't look like $1400 worth of difference between these two lenses (which actually are separated by less than a full f-stop). |
That should surprise noone. The $1400 difference you pay for:
- 24-70 zoom range
- f/2.8 aperture
- AF
- electronically coupled aperture
- NOT to have better IQ than a CZJ 135/3.5.
Conclusion: comparing a 135/3.5 to the 24-70L is apples to oranges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Posts: 722
Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
Ah, but with the 135mm, one gets 135mm.
Conversely, with the Canon, one gets four times as much glass, metal and plastic.
_________________
"Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 28-50, 28-70, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300, 200-500
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 50-135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| AhamB wrote: |
| gaeger wrote: |
| Francotirador: I like your comparisons! I think your point may be that there doesn't look like $1400 worth of difference between these two lenses (which actually are separated by less than a full f-stop). |
That should surprise noone. The $1400 difference you pay for:
- 24-70 zoom range
- f/2.8 aperture
- AF
- electronically coupled aperture
- NOT to have better IQ than a CZJ 135/3.5.
Conclusion: comparing a 135/3.5 to the 24-70L is apples to oranges. |
Yes, it's like comparing apples to oranges, but serve to take pictures. I repeat the only possible conclusion is that the image provides a Rokkor 58/1.2, or one Sonnar 135/3.5 is current in terms of quality.
Better quality and loss of automation.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
