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

Comparing two 135mm lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Comparing two 135mm lenses Reply with quote

Hi folks

Light was not the best today but hopefully good enough. These are all either wide open or one stop down at f5.6:

Lens A:



Lens B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lens B has smoother bokeh , more contrast and looks sharper than Lens A ....

Lans B also has smaller DOF ....


Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:52 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really? I can't see much difference at all.

I do think Lens A has a slightly warmer tone.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Really? I can't see much difference at all.

I do think Lens A has a slightly warmer tone.


I don't see much difference. Really, to do tests, a test chart is best. Otherwise, the slightest variation in focus or lighting will enter into the analysis.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are a few more shots with 100% crops:

A:



B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



A:



B:



PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now that I see it again in the 1st test the focusing point is different.

In the clock test if the focus point and aperture is identical in both lenses then Lens B has a smaller DOF than the other...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I focussed on the LONDON lettering on the clock, both lenses were wide open. In all the shots I focussed on the same point between lenses. I can't decide which has the smaller dof, I think A is slightly smaller, but it's very hard to tell.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martinsmith99 wrote:
A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF.


Again, without controlled conditions and a test chart the analysis is hampered.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

B! B! B!
Sharper IMO, but most important, more contrast and better wider dynamic range..


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would have either. Sell the ugliest one.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keysersoze27 wrote:

if the focus point and aperture is identical in both lenses then Lens B has a smaller DOF than the other...


I thought the same thing

..but anyway, both look good to me.. keep the one which feels better to you (if you plan to sell one)


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martinsmith99 wrote:
A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF.


Actually, A is a faster lens by half a stop.

I'm trying to narrow down my large collection of 135mms, I had so many, got rid of the crappy ones already, still have some lesser ones to sell, narrowed it down to 6 really good ones and can't decide between them so will probably end up keeping all 6!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
A looks a bit sharper, but this could be because it has smaller aperture and greater DOF.


Actually, A is a faster lens by half a stop.

I'm trying to narrow down my large collection of 135mms, I had so many, got rid of the crappy ones already, still have some lesser ones to sell, narrowed it down to 6 really good ones and can't decide between them so will probably end up keeping all 6!


May I ask why?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why I'm reducing the number of 135mm lenses I own?

Simple, I only want to keep the best ones, the lesser ones are useless to me and I can sell them to finance new purchases.

Actually, I remembered another I want to keep, so it's 7 keepers...

Konica Hexanon AE 3.2/135
Konica Hexanon EE 3.5/135
Konica Hexar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Topcor 3.5/135
Pentacon 2.8/135
Meyer Primotar 3.5/135
Jupiter-11A 4/135


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why I'm reducing the number of 135mm lenses I own?

Simple, I only want to keep the best ones, the lesser ones are useless to me and I can sell them to finance new purchases.

Actually, I remembered another I want to keep, so it's 7 keepers...

Konica Hexanon AE 3.2/135
Konica Hexanon EE 3.5/135
Konica Hexar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Topcor 3.5/135
Pentacon 2.8/135
Meyer Primotar 3.5/135
Jupiter-11A 4/135


No, why keep more than 1?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I noticed a long time ago that the more of any one type of lens I had, the less I would use any of them. Shall I take the Junkagon 1.4/50, or the Fuzzinar 1.7/55, or the Sphericrap 1.8/55, or the Luxanor 2/58, or the Dimalux 1.9/55, or the Curvigonet 2.2/45, or the Macro-Astigmarol 2.8/55, or the . . . . . . . . ? Er, aw, um, dammit, now the sun's gone and its raining again, so lets make a coffee and have some cake instead Very Happy

Perhaps there's something to be said for "Lens Monogamy" (the practice of having only one lens in any particular focal length). Although that probably won't go down well with the bunch of promiscuous serial lens adulterers on MF Lenses (me included, of course).


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
I noticed a long time ago that the more of any one type of lens I had, the less I would use any of them. Shall I take the Junkagon 1.4/50, or the Fuzzinar 1.7/55, or the Sphericrap 1.8/55, or the Luxanor 2/58, or the Dimalux 1.9/55, or the Curvigonet 2.2/45, or the Macro-Astigmarol 2.8/55, or the . . . . . . . . ? Er, aw, um, dammit, now the sun's gone and its raining again, so lets make a coffee and have some cake instead Very Happy

Perhaps there's something to be said for "Lens Monogamy" (the practice of having only one lens in any particular focal length). Although that probably won't go down well with the bunch of promiscuous serial lens adulterers on MF Lenses (me included, of course).


For a while now I have contemplated getting a 180mm Elmar-R (f/4.0) in addition to the 180mm Elmarit-R II (f/2.8 ), because the former is such a light, compact lens (540 gr). But the Elmarit-R II is so compact and light itself (810g), it hardly makes sense. The old Elmarit-R type 1 that I owned weighed about 1325 g, so perhaps I still have the feeling based on that one.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are all sorts of reasons I keep more than one lens in each focal length, although I'm trying hard to pare down my collection, already I got rid of a lot of lenses, I'm currently selling of all my zooms (apart from my Konica ones) and trying out lenses to find lesser performers to cull from the herd. For example, today I tried out the tiny Palinar (Tokina) t-mount 4/100 and it's okay, not bad, but suffers from lower contrast and is quite soft wide open, decent performer at f8. I'm not keeping it though as I have a Zeiss Cardinar 4/100 and a Meyer 2.8/100 which are both significantly better lenses and not much larger, in the case of the Cardinar actually slightly smaller.

It's fun to try out different lenses, and certainly a good way of learning how to spot a really good lens.

Light was bad today, low cloud and dim so I couldn't do the long range landscape shots I wanted to try with these 135mm lenses. Instead I just shot some daffodils in a vase, both wide open.

A:




B:



I think both lenses perform very well, by way of comparison, here's a similar shot with the Palinar 4/100 wide open, a medicore result, a little soft with some glow and low contrast:



PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm still struggling to discern much difference between these two lenses but I would say A is a little warmer and B has a slight edge in sharpness and contrast.

No-one had a go at guessing what they are yet...


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do a flare test Ian ... both the sun on the frame and out of frame Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will try that, as soon as the sun appears! Shooting opportunities with good light are very limited here this time of year, sadly.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not necessary to wait for sun. Just put something on window-sill and shoot against the window. It's more real life test than shooting against the sun. Look at the owl images in this my test.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks brunner, your 135mm test was amazing.

What will the window sill test show? Contrast mainly?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

myself Wink wrote:
Third test is my torture backlighting situations and close distance sharpness test. Check how well the lens retains its contrast in this situation and how does the contrast change when stopping down.

Some tele-lenses shows good contrast in this situation at full aperture, but when stopped down, the contrast is lost.