View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: Big test of around 100mm lenses |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I'm going to downsize my collection considerably. Before I do, I want to test my lenses against each other. I'm going to try out my 85-105mm lenses first. It's going to be timeconsuming so I want to avoid stupid mistakes and any extra work. What would be a meaningful way to conduct the test without making it too big a task?
I was thinking:
One closeup at f3.5, one medium distance (think whole body portrait distance) at f5.6 and one landscape at f11. I guess I should include a picture of wide open performance as well. I'm not going to treat the macro lenses as macro lenses, I'm hoping for a positive surprise.
The lenses that I will include in the test are:
Canon FD 85/1.2 Asph
Samyang 85/1.4
Konica Hexanon 85/1.8
Contax G 90/2.8
Voigtländer 90/3.5 Apo
Tokina 90/2.5 Macro
Olympus OM 90/2 Macro
Olympus OM 100/2
Olympus PenF 100/3.5
X-Fujinon 100/2.8 EBC
Yashica ML 100/3.5 Macro
Konica Hexanon 100/2.8
Nikon 105/1.8 AI-S
Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S
And as a bonus the zooms Hexanon UC 45-100/3.5 and Olympus PenF 50-90/3.5 at their longest.
A lot of work but I think it will be wort it. Hopefully.
Any ideas or suggestions? _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015)
Last edited by Pontus on Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:08 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Go out and shoot nice subjects and forget this test , lot of work and bring a little. A technically better lens makes worst shoot in bad light, not proper hands or boring subject than a low respected lens in proper hands on good light. Take a look on Woodrim, Luisallegria etc photos many of them made with low respected lens and what a photos. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I know that you're right but I kind of like comparing lenses like this. And if I don't do it I will feel that I missed the chance, once the lenses have been sold _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
I think that it's a very good test, but with so many lenses to test, you will need to dedicate a whole day, or at least an afternoon, for it. _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
I know that you're right but I kind of like comparing lenses like this. And if I don't do it I will feel that I missed the chance, once the lenses have been sold |
In this case go ahead I look forward it. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
hoacker
Joined: 01 May 2011 Posts: 89 Location: Germany, S�dhessen
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Big test of around 100mm lenses |
|
|
hoacker wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
Nikon 105/2 AI-S |
Never heard of that one. But I love my Nikkor 2.5/105, definitely a keeper. _________________ Holger
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D, 7D, 1000Da, M
Manual lenses: Zeiss Distagon 3,5/18 ZE, Nikon PC-Nikkor 28mm 1:3.5, Olympus OM 28 f/2,0, Zeiss Distagon 2/35 ZE, Leitz Summicron-R 1:2/50, Minolta MC ROKKOR 1:1.2 f=58mm (EOS-Mod), LZOS MC Jupiter-9 2/85, Meyer-Optik G�rlitz Trioplan 1:2.8/100 V (Exa), Zeiss Macro Planar 2/100 ZE, Nikon Nikkor-P.C Auto 1:2.5 f=105mm, Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 1:4,5/105, Porst Tele 1:1,8/135mm MC AUTO (M42), Cosina Auto Cosinon 135mm/2.8 (M42), Makinon MC 1:5.6 300mm Reflex, LZOS MTO 1000A 10,5/1100
AF lenses: Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2,8 IS USM, Canon EF-M 22mm 1:2 STM, Canon EF 40 f/2,8 STM, Canon EF-S 60 f/2,8 USM, Canon EF 200 1:2.8L II USM, Canon EF 500 f/4L IS USM, Canon Extender 1,4x III, Sigma 50-150/2,8 EX DC APO HSM II, Sigma 150 f/2,8 HSM, Sigma APO Tele Converter 1.4x EX DG, Sigma APO Tele Converter 2x EX DG, Kenko Extension Tubes
For sale (PM me): E.Zuiko Auto-T 1:3,5 f=100mm (Pen F), Zeiss Planar 85 f/1,4 (C/Y)
Some pictures at Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
It will take time, I'm aware of that. I've done similiar tests before. Here's an example from a couple of years back, WAY too ambitious
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/tele-lenses-compared-warning-lots-of-pictures_topic72613_post827700.html?KW=#827700f _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015)
Last edited by Pontus on Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Big test of around 100mm lenses |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
hoacker wrote: |
Pontus wrote: |
Nikon 105/2 AI-S |
Never heard of that one. But I love my Nikkor 2.5/105, definitely a keeper. |
Nikkor 105/2.5 of course, I've corrected my original post. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree with Attila and I wouldn't bother. Not fun to shoot these tests and too boring to look at.
Selecting lenses based on technical tests is a fallacy imho.
Keep the ones you enjoy using most that produces the pictures you enjoy most.
As long as it's technically good enough to make enjoyable pictures, it's good enough. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
My feeling is that if you don't already know which lenses you like best, then you haven't used them enough.
There's a lot more than optical quality to consider, which you only find out by using them. For example the pictures from my Jupiter-9 are great but I find it awkward to adjust the aperture. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
unless you nail the focus, keep the subject identical, identical lighting, and get the exposure to match, comparing is going to be hard. _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4
Last edited by hifisapi on Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote: |
unless you nail the focus, keep the subject identical, and get the exposure to match, comparing is going to be hard. |
You need a test target, a constant light source, a tripod, etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 410
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Big test of around 100mm lenses |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
...
The lenses that I will include in the test are:
Canon FD 85/1.2 Asph
Samyang 85/1.4
Konica Hexanon 85/1.8
Contax G 90/2.8
Voigtländer 90/3.5 Apo
Tokina 90/2.5 Macro
Olympus OM 90/2 Macro
Olympus OM 100/2
Olympus PenF 100/3.5
X-Fujinon 100/2.8 EBC
Yashica ML 100/3.5 Macro
Konica Hexanon 100/2.8
Nikon 105/1.8 AI-S
Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S
...
Any ideas or suggestions? |
That's quite a list of quality lenses, not just cheap junk.
Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. _________________ La migliore cura di LBA � imparare una nuova lingua. Le meilleur rem�de de LBA est d'apprendre une nouvelle langue. La mejor cura del LBA es aprender una nueva lengua. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Attila wrote: |
Go out and shoot nice subjects and forget this test , lot of work and bring a little. A technically better lens makes worst shoot in bad light, not proper hands or boring subject than a low respected lens in proper hands on good light. Take a look on Woodrim, Luisallegria etc photos many of them made with low respected lens and what a photos. |
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
I disagree. Shots in real world situations are far more enlightening than any test chart shot. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Attila wrote: |
Pontus wrote: |
I know that you're right but I kind of like comparing lenses like this. And if I don't do it I will feel that I missed the chance, once the lenses have been sold |
In this case go ahead I look forward it. |
+1 and maybe add just a few selected crops for resolution comparison. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7787 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
I agree, charts can give the definitive difference between lenses, but most of us don't shoot charts. I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree with it. But...................
......we expect to get images and delightful and interesting pictures from our lenses, the technicalities of the equipment have to be secondary. So, my opinion is; shoot some difficult real world pictures with each lens - and one good well controlled test shot, not a chart, but a very average image that anyone would shoot. Set it up with controlled lighting, on a tripod and shoot. I think that will show up the good, the bad and the ugly. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
I agree, charts can give the definitive difference between lenses, but most of us don't shoot charts. I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree with it. But...................
......we expect to get images and delightful and interesting pictures from our lenses, the technicalities of the equipment have to be secondary. So, my opinion is; shoot some difficult real world pictures with each lens - and one good well controlled test shot, not a chart, but a very average image that anyone would shoot. Set it up with controlled lighting, on a tripod and shoot. I think that will show up the good, the bad and the ugly. |
But you can't tell what is the lens and what is the environment that way. Too many variables/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7787 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
Lloydy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
I agree, charts can give the definitive difference between lenses, but most of us don't shoot charts. I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree with it. But...................
......we expect to get images and delightful and interesting pictures from our lenses, the technicalities of the equipment have to be secondary. So, my opinion is; shoot some difficult real world pictures with each lens - and one good well controlled test shot, not a chart, but a very average image that anyone would shoot. Set it up with controlled lighting, on a tripod and shoot. I think that will show up the good, the bad and the ugly. |
But you can't tell what is the lens and what is the environment that way. Too many variables/ |
I know, but we shoot 'variables' 99.9% of the time. I said that I'd like to see one fully controlled picture from each lens, make it a challenging picture, but not a test chart. Or at least do this alongside a test chart picture. I see more, and seem able to judge a lens better from a picture than any chart, maybe that's a personal thing? I suspect it is. I think I'm having a quiet revolution against pixel peeping. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
Lloydy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
hoanpham wrote: |
When you are done. Let me take over.
I can continue using them and shot natural objects instead of charts, and map the unique properties of each lens.
That too is very time consuming. |
Charts tell you exactly what is what with each lens. Charts are more useful than 'natural objects' for lens comparisons because it's impossible to control all the variables otherwise. |
I agree, charts can give the definitive difference between lenses, but most of us don't shoot charts. I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree with it. But...................
......we expect to get images and delightful and interesting pictures from our lenses, the technicalities of the equipment have to be secondary. So, my opinion is; shoot some difficult real world pictures with each lens - and one good well controlled test shot, not a chart, but a very average image that anyone would shoot. Set it up with controlled lighting, on a tripod and shoot. I think that will show up the good, the bad and the ugly. |
But you can't tell what is the lens and what is the environment that way. Too many variables/ |
I know, but we shoot 'variables' 99.9% of the time. I said that I'd like to see one fully controlled picture from each lens, make it a challenging picture, but not a test chart. Or at least do this alongside a test chart picture. I see more, and seem able to judge a lens better from a picture than any chart, maybe that's a personal thing? I suspect it is. I think I'm having a quiet revolution against pixel peeping. |
Ideally, one does both, but some scenes can mask lens flaws. I have used test charts and it does give a very clear insight into a lens's performance potential. Some test chats have special patterns that show astigmatism and coma. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
Charts can be useful, but most of the time we shoot in real life situations when it's anything but a well controlled environment... so the use of charts is also quite limited... _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wuxiekeji
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Posts: 213
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wuxiekeji wrote:
Charts tell you about sharpness, but don't tell you much about bokeh, flare, colour temperature, and the million other things that are important in any real photo... _________________ Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 60D | Canon EOS-M | Voigtlander Nokton 1.4/35 | Zeiss Distagon C-Y 4/18 | Zeiss Distagon ZF 2/28 | Samyang 1.4/35 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/50 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/85 | Zeiss Makro-Planar C-Y 2.8/100 | Zeiss Sonnar C-Y 2.8/135 | Nikkor ED Ai-S 2.8/180 | Canon FD SSC Fluorite 2.8/300 | Tair-3S 4.5/300 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aspen
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 Posts: 307 Location: Maryland, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aspen wrote:
Pontus, all of those lenses have been tested, and most of us know that they have strengths and a few weaknesses...mostly strengths . I think testing lenses may have had validity when they were first introduced, before they were known. And when shooting film, only film, it was much more important information. But now, in this digital age, post production can eliminate many weaknesses, so much more depends upon the sensor of the camera. There are probably greater variables in using a Sony Nex 5n as opposed to a Nikon D4, etc., in respect to how a lens renders, and what can be pulled from a shot. _________________ Cameras; Sony Nex5n Lenses; Konica Hexanons; 21mm f2.8, 40mm f1,8, 50mm f1.4, 50mmf1.7,57mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8, 135mm f3.2, 200mm f4, MC Helios 77M-4 50mm f1.8, Jupiter 8 50 f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 (Macro), Steinheil Munchen Culminar 85mm f2.8, Steinheil Munchen Exagon 35mm f2.8, Jupiter 37A 135mm, Astra Berlin 135mm f3.5, Angenieux 180mm f4 , Tair 3-PhS 300mm f4.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|