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

Pancolar 1.8/50,Flektogon2.8/35,flektogon2.4/35 Comparisons
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Pancolar 1.8/50,Flektogon2.8/35,flektogon2.4/35 Comparisons Reply with quote
I´m a bloody layman, so don´t bother, if my comparisons may be not sufficient for serious final judgement... Embarassed

I took RAW-photos without any further editing and made comparable 100%-crops.

First an impression of the initial scene (taken with the Pancolar 1.8/50):



First I have compared my Carl-Zeiss-Jena lenses:

Flektogon 2.8/35 - Flektogon 2.4/35 - Pancolar 1.8/50


And here my fastest lenses:

Pancolar 1.8/50 - Porst 1.4/55


And at last serveral diverse lenses:

Helios 44-2 2/58 - Biotar 2/58 - Schneider-Kreuznach 2.8/50 - Porst 1.4/55



My conclusions... ? Rolling Eyes Confused Rolling Eyes

Hard to say. In my humble opinion they all made a good job.
It´s possible but difficult to create a ranking order.

Last edited by Retro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:09 pm; edited 5 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey retro

Another sigma user and very welcome. Which machine were these taken on? The surprise to me was the Schneider Kreuznach - what lens is that exactly? Looks very very sharp. And what's up with the Porst at 1,8, it's way off the others but sharpens up a lot for 5,6?

patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Which machine were these taken on? The surprise to me was the Schneider Kreuznach - what lens is that exactly? Looks very very sharp. And what's up with the Porst at 1,8, it's way off the others but sharpens up a lot for 5,6?

I took my Sigma SD9.

Schneider-Kreuznach 2.8/50
Yes, the Schneider-Kreuznach (I got it for 15 Euro) was a surprise.

Yes, the Porst 1.4/55 was dissapoining at 1.8, but very satisfying at 5.6.
And the Pancolar was marvellous from 1.8 to end. That´s the reason, one should choose a fast lens very accurately. A nominal low number of light intensity does say nothing, if you have to close down the aperture to have a sharp image. But hold in mind, that these are 100%-crop-comparisons. If I create a "normal" picture (DIN A4 0r DIN A3), the differences will vanish...

Quote:
Another sigma user and very welcome.

Who is my brother in Sigmarism here? Cool

And here is a comparison between the Pancolar and the Schnneider-Kreuznach:

The Pancoloar is obviously the champion not only due to its better resolution but also its high light intensiveness.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
When I pay attention to the wrinkled skin just to the side of the right eye (my right, the model's left), they are most clear and obvious with the black Flektogon.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
they are most clear and obvious with the black Flektogon.

I estimate, the black Flektogon (2.4/35) is the best M-42-lens I own.
If you compare, you can see and validate, what an expert told me:
The alu Flektogon (2.8/35) is quite equal to the black Flektogon (2.4/35), but the black-one has a little bit better contrast, while the alu-one has a little bit wider DOF. The black-one has a minimum focus distance of 18cm, the alu-one 35cm and the black has a modern coating, that may explain this points.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Retro wrote:
Quote:
they are most clear and obvious with the black Flektogon.

I estimate, the black Flektogon (2.4/35) is the best M-42-lens I own.
If you compare, you can see and validate, what an expert told me:
The alu Flektogon (2.8/35) is quite equal to the black Flektogon (2.4/35), but the black-one has a little bit better contrast, while the alu-one has a little bit wider DOF. The black-one has a minimum focus distance of 18cm, the alu-one 35cm and the black has a modern coating, that may explain this points.


Well, contrast maybe, but DoF has nothing to do with coating. What he means surely is a "wider" DoF when wide open due to f2.8 instead of f2.4.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@LucisPictor: But I made the comparison-pictures with both lenses at 5.6 and the DOF with the alu is wider?
I have the opinion, that this is due to the different minimum focus distance of the lenses.



PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Retro wrote:
@LucisPictor: But I made the comparison-pictures with both lenses at 5.6 and the DOF with the alu is wider?
I have the opinion, that this is due to the different minimum focus distance of the lenses.

Hi Retro, DOF is a function of the distance from the subject as well as the aperture setting. Were all these shots taken from the same distance? (The black Flek image looks a little larger and the Pancolar was obviously further away if these are true 100% crops). If the black Flek was closer to the subject then it would naturally show a narrower DOF.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Were all these shots taken from the same distance?

The comparison-photos of the black and alu Flektogons had the same distance and a preset of aperture 5.6.

With the photos of other lenses (like the Pancolar above) I had to change the distance to get a quite "same-sized" szene, but also standardized them to 5.6.
I know, it is a little bit useless, to compare lenses with different focus-lenght... Confused


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Retro wrote:
I know, it is a little bit useless, to compare lenses with different focus-lenght... Confused


It's not useless, you just cannot compare DoF.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You are confounding two topics (first: DOF-differences between "black and alu" / second: comparing a bunch of lenses with different focus-lenghts), I talked about.
I did not mean "comparing DOF".

I meant comparing the different impression different focal-lenghts of primes produce.
Holding the size of one component of a scene constant is a short-sighted compromise.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1