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

Three 135mm lenses compared
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:39 am    Post subject: Three 135mm lenses compared Reply with quote
A quick and simple test of three 3.5/135 lenses. It was a very bright day, the scene was very high contrast. I set the camera (NEX-3) on a sturdy tripod and each lens was shot with the same shutter speed and aperture setting (wide open at f3.5). I figured this was a real challenge to the lenses in terms of CA on highlights and maintaining contrast despite the difficult light.

One of the lenses is from the early 1980s and is multicoated, the other two are from the late 1950s and are single coated. It is very obvious which one has the MC.

The three lenses are:

CZJ Prakticar 3.5/135 (Sonnar)
Canon 3.5/135 (M39 for RF)
Komura 3.5/135 (M39 for RF)

All three are in mint condition, this was really a test of the two old M39 lenses and I chose the Sonnar as a good yardstick.

Here are the three shots, each with 100% crops:

A:



B:



C:



I won't comment on the IQ, let people decide for themselves.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd say Komura >>>> CZJ > Canon


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well it's indeed obvious that the last one is the Prakticar. It also seems to be considerably sharper (not only contrast).

While not even close to C, A is still very noticeably better (less bad) than B in terms of contrast. But B might be just a tad sharper, though I could be fooling myself (in either case much less difference there than between both of them and C). Will be interesting to learn which is which.

Thanks!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
Well it's indeed obvious that the last one is the Prakticar. It also seems to be considerably sharper (not only contrast).

While not even close to C, A is still very noticeably better (less bad) than B in terms of contrast. But B might be just a tad sharper, though I could be fooling myself (in either case much less difference there than between both of them and C). Will be interesting to learn which is which.

Thanks!


I agree with your comments - C is the sharpest, but I think the resolution of C is no higher than B, with A just a tiny bit behind. The reason for C being the sharpest is the much higher contrast (sharpness being a function of both resolution and contrast). To me, this shows that B is a lens with very good resolution but weak coating, A is a lens with good resolution and quite good coating, and C has both very good resolution and very good coating. Interestingly, all three lenses seem to have roughly the same level of CA correction, however, C again seems to be the best in that regard. We are only talking very small differences however.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Interestingly, all three lenses seem to have roughly the same level of CA correction, however, C again seems to be the best in that regard. We are only talking very small differences however.


It's really interesting. Either our eyes or our brains work differently. Wink
For me C is the worst in terms of CA.
Here is the crop of your crop of lens C where I see the most CA:


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would almost say that the canon has some haze? :0)

I prefer the look of C , but A looks good.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I look at the whole pictures, definitely picture A is my favorite as it keeps the most natural look. B lacks of contrast and C has too much contrast for my taste.
Minor differences in pixel peeping mode are not important for me at all.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A: Canon
B: Komura
C: CZJ

The Komura's glass is perfectly clean, it just has weak coating and probably poorly designed light baffling inside the lens. It is sharp and well corrected though, much better than the other Komura's I've tried, which were all soft and less that highly corrected in areas like CA and Coma.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you use a hood ?
I cant say I have seen this defect on my Komuras (washed out, no contrast).


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No hood. I think the Komura is displaying veiling flare; as mentioned, the light was very strong and it was coming from low in the sky.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be interesting to adjust the contrast on all three to match and then see the difference, I suspect it it would be very small.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
It would be interesting to adjust the contrast on all three to match and then see the difference, I suspect it it would be very small.


I agree. Once the contrast is adjusted and some adjustment of highlights and shadows, then they would probably be almost indistinguishable.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be interesting to see how the Canon 135mm FD and FDN (which most people have) compare to see if the results are better, same or worse.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1