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

Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 Reply with quote
The Contax Planar turned up, yay!

I have decided to pitch it up against the young Samyang contender, to see if twice the price means twice the performance. Obviously it's dark, and cold, so I can't do any outside tests today. However, that doesn't stop me doing a quick indoor test to kick the thread off.

Edit: The first indoor monkey test was performed on a Canon EOS 5D classic at the same shutter speeds in the same position on a tripod @ ISO 100 on 10 second self timer mode.

Wide open @ f1.4

Planar



Samyang



My first immediate conclusion is that the focal length of the Planar is actually longer than that of the Samyang!

Detail test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



Looks like I focused ever so slightly forward with the Samyang (easy to do @ f1.4). Looking at the knitting under the eyes, I'd say the Planar has a bit more detail.

Bokeh test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



The Samyang looks smoother and therefore less distracting here.

Conclusion

It's very close really isn't it? The Planar gives a slightly more detailed image, but the Samyang has a more pleasing background (IMHO).

Last edited by ManualFocus-G on Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see no difference, without doubt Samyang is best buy nowadays.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 Reply with quote
Same test @ f2

Planar



Samyang



Detail test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



Hmm, this time the Samyang is a little back focused by the look of things, so difficult to use this as a real test. I *think* I prefer the Planar shot.

Bokeh test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



Those AE ninja blades make an appearance! Pretty cool, but a bit more distracting that the Samyang's highlights. And I've just realised that I'm talking about highlights here and not bokeh in general. The outdoors tests will show us that!

Conclusion

I'm confused.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dear Graham!!

First of all -- you chose the wrong subject ! lol

The right one is blurred on the background and I would say there is some vodka in it!

seriously -- it's quite interesting to see both -- I mean both great lenses - against each other

I can not judge the Samyang as I have not had any chance to try it but you'll be definitely satisfied with the Planar - especially against strong light..

and longer distances

and with the 3D

and .. well except ninjas but that was the last thing which bothered me ..

The comparison is very good

Thanks for sharing these pictures

tf


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had Samyang and it's a great lens for a great price! Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4 Reply with quote
Here we go @ f2.8 and let's invite the Sonnar 85/2.8 into the party!

Planar



Samyang



Sonnar



Detail test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



Sonnar



Yep, this test is impossible! The Planar seems to be the most accurate to focus though, followed by the Sonnar. Bear in mind I refocused at each stop to ensure that any focus shift was taken into account.

Bokeh test - 100% crop

Planar



Samyang



Sonnar



The ninjas are still at it! The Sonnar bokeh is more contrasty. I'm a sucker for Sonnars, so I'll be interested to see what happens outside!

Conclusion

Indoor tests are rubbish.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry it's not a brilliant test, but I will update the thread with real world usage...I promise! Very Happy

Stan...you're correct! Next test will be vodka outside with a nice foresty background Laughing I already love the Planar...I'm pretty sure it's not a snob thing - the lens just feels heavy and well made Smile

NikonD and Attila - the Samyang continues to astound me! It's just such good value and has such smooth bokeh.

The Sonnar has always impressed me. I love Sonnars Cool


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ooo~~~ I love that sonnar, are you by any chance selling it? Wink

Planar does have more overall presence than Samyang, even though the Samyang is pretty good itself.

By the way, if you look at the image with one eye closed...


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, very very interesting test. Thanks for sharing.
I am very curious about this Samyang lens, specially for the buttery bokeh. And you have proved it.
I already have Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 & 85/2.8 and I like them all. For the bokeh I prefer my Leica 90/2.

Please do test outside to compare the microcontrast & 3D look, flare & CA. I have read the review on lenstip.com, but I need more field test proof. I'll be waiting. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go
with the cheapest lens. The Samyang is quite an excellent performer
in any case, even while I realize this isn't a scientific test. But...I still
have a feeling one would never be wrong to buy a Samyang OR the
others. A real close call that would not be a factor for me at this point; I
would go with the Samyang all the way from a money point of view.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
so i guess this is a sort of mythbuster episode.
zeiss optics are good but it is NOT that good when price factor kick in.
if price is 2x or 3x that of a samyang then it should at least offer much better or sharper image quality.

also i do not buy that the test has to be outdoors. indoor or outdoor, nigh or day you should see the difference between 2 lens under all conditions.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jun wrote:
so i guess this is a sort of mythbuster episode.
zeiss optics are good but it is NOT that good when price factor kick in.
if price is 2x or 3x that of a samyang then it should at least offer much better or sharper image quality.

also i do not buy that the test has to be outdoors. indoor or outdoor, nigh or day you should see the difference between 2 lens under all conditions.


Not really, in complete darkness you cannot see any difference between any two lens. Twisted Evil So I am eagerly waiting for more comparison in other lighting condition. Zeiss shines in lighting condition that enable its 3D drawing.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Conclusion

Indoor tests are rubbish.


ManualFocus-G wrote:
Sorry it's not a brilliant test, but I will update the thread with real world usage...I promise! Very Happy

Stan...you're correct! Next test will be vodka outside with a nice foresty background Laughing I already love the Planar...I'm pretty sure it's not a snob thing - the lens just feels heavy and well made Smile

NikonD and Attila - the Samyang continues to astound me! It's just such good value and has such smooth bokeh.

The Sonnar has always impressed me. I love Sonnars Cool


As a bokeh guy, I can assure you, I LOVE the Planar, yet find the Samyang as boring as most other new, MTF driven lenses in that regard. The Planar according to Zeiss' own charts is not hard to defeat strictly on MTF these days - it's the character that's hard to replicate.

So many times these tests come back to this, yet I too am guilty of looking under the skirt of a lens in this way. She's pretty, leave it alone, haha.

A reminder of my own test of the C/Y vs the ZA, which was noted as similar in the bokeh dept to the Samyang -

http://forum.mflenses.com/contax-planar-and-sony-planar-a-comparison-of-bokeh-t25978.html

K.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry, but

1) comparing a lens from the 1960s to a lens from the 2010s
2) in a setup which won't show much difference
3) using a body which can't draw as much detail as the lens
4) on a system one of the lenses originally was not calibrated for

If it makes you even happier about the Samyang then I guess the test did what you wanted it to do, but I wouldn't draw any deeper conclusions as this can't exactly be called academically validated methods.

No doubt the Samyang is excellent value for money, and likely will remain so even compared to the modern ZE Planar T* 85/1.4 (which, contrary to the Contax version, is designed for the system you tested the lenses with). Like always with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double or triple the price.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius, you sound very defensive Wink I have no agenda here, and have already stated that this first test is very basic.

As to whether I should be comparing a lens from the 80s to a lens made 30 years later on digital, why not? Fair or not, I want to see what works best on my 5D!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Esox lucius, you sound very defensive Wink


Defensive? That's weird, because I don't own a Contax lens or body, have never owned a Samyang lens, nor do I presently own or use Canon DSLRs - I have nothing to defend here.

I wrote my opinion, which still is: if you do these "head to head" comparisons, people will treat them as tests whether you intended it or not. I think it is a waste of time and misleading to use methods that will produce results which can't be scientifically or even academically validated.

I agree it is important to know how a lens performs on the DSLR you use, but you should be careful to draw conclusions of what is better and what not, when you use test methods that are not exactly waterproof.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the topic of scientific v perception based testing has been done to death, and I don't intend to start that one again. I simply take photos myself and rely upon what I see as my results. Sorry if you don't agree with me doing this, but I will continue nonetheless, and others will have the choice of looking at my comparisons or looking ay mtf results or looking at other people's results or even their own to draw a conclusion.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I think the topic of scientific v perception based testing has been done to death, and I don't intend to start that one again. I simply take photos myself and rely upon what I see as my results. Sorry if you don't agree with me doing this, but I will continue nonetheless, and others will have the choice of looking at my comparisons or looking ay mtf results or looking at other people's results or even their own to draw a conclusion.


...........umpteen tests and at the end of the day it's what a pair of human eyes likes and sees Wink


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
ooo~~~ I love that sonnar, are you by any chance selling it? Wink


Haha, we'll see Wink It's tiny and great fun to use Smile I know of a cheap one in the UK if you are after one...

aleksanderpolo wrote:
By the way, if you look at the image with one eye closed...


Woah! 3D monkey! Laughing

nixland wrote:

I already have Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 & 85/2.8 and I like them all. For the bokeh I prefer my Leica 90/2.

Please do test outside to compare the microcontrast & 3D look, flare & CA. I have read the review on lenstip.com, but I need more field test proof. I'll be waiting. Smile


You have some SERIOUS gear! Cool I totally agree, outside and real life shots are needed too. The sun still hasn't come out today though Confused Typical! Laughing

Laurence, Jun - whatever my test shots will show over the next few weeks, the Samyang is still without a doubt a great lens. I have used it for baby portraits and it renders really great images with lovely buttery, smooth bokeh.

Kelly - you've nailed what I'm looking for...character. My Canon EF 50/1.8 II beats the pants off my Planar 50/1.4 at the close range test chart challenge. But in real life shoots, the Planar has the pop, amkeing my images look more exciting (to me) and is way better at infinity.

Esox lucius - sorry if I sounded grumpy this morning, I didn't mean to sound rude Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

1) comparing a lens from the 1960s to a lens from the 2010s
…
4) on a system one of the lenses originally was not calibrated for


I don't get these points: one lens being older or made for a different system may be an explanation for lower than expected performance (if such occurs) but it's still a perfectly valid comparison from the point of view of someone who lives in the 2010's (without a time machine) and uses the system that they do.

(As for the other points I agree that this particular comparison is not good for establishing any kind of deeper understanding of the performance of these lenses. But the bokeh differences are interesting to see, even though limited to this one scene, so I don't mind seeing posts like this… =)


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go with the cheapest lens.


Most reasonably good lenses have such little difference that at the end of the day most of us choose one over another for all the wrong reasons (brand status for example) and not based on what matters.

I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand".


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChromaticAberration wrote:
I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand".

Well...for example...when properly focused, I can always distinguish between my APO-Telyt 180 and over twenty 180-200mm primes and ~200mm zooms i've tried (except APO Lanthar 180). But sometimes It's necessary to go to 100%.
Yes, 50mm primes stopped down to f5.6 is another story...


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku: This is nollatutkimusta, Finnish for 0-value research; a waste of time. You are free to like what you want, just as I am free to express my opinion about "comparisons" which I find useless, because of uncomparable methodology producing biased results.

In addition to already mentioned issues, none of the samples show comparable focus. Furthermore, all photos are exposed with Auto White Balance (most likely in flickering 60Hz indoor light), further reducing comparability between frames. On top of it, you are using 8-bit compressed files on modest screens, to evaluate results? It's like comparing instrument sounds based on a 128 kbps MP3 file Rolling Eyes

No matter if this was intended as a "real" comparison or not, the way it is presented will lead to it being treated as such - a comparison. If you can't stand objective arguments which question the data sampling methods, then you should refrain from doing or publishing these kind of comparisons.

This is like a test drive on gravel, involving a Westfield SEiW and a Lotus 7. A complete waste of time, with predictable, subjective findings.

Undoubtedly the Samyang gives better value for money, because in 99.9% of cases the last 20% of performance will double the lens price. But please... don't call it better because even with unfair comparison, it does not look better. And please refrain from using pseudo-scientific Rockwell methodology to prove opinions based on your beliefs/intents, as opposed to scientifically validated facts.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChromaticAberration wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Well, the differences are so far so miniscule that I would definitely go with the cheapest lens.


Most reasonably good lenses have such little difference that at the end of the day most of us choose one over another for all the wrong reasons (brand status for example) and not based on what matters.

I would like in fact to challenge some member of the forum with a vast collection of premium and so-so brands to post some unidentified pictures for comparison. I bet most of the times we would be guessing wrong between the "Zeiss" and the "other brand".


See this test on FM forum:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0

Result: Most people can tell the difference between a Zeiss and Canon in a blind test. In adverse lighting condition, the difference between a MP 100 and a Canon is small, but when lighting is right and the subject has proper texture, the difference is night and day.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think your test is worthless, Graham. It was educative to see the difference in bokeh and bokeh CA and drawing of detail. The Planar is in fact a bit sharper at f/1.4 than I expected -- it's often said that it has some glow/softness wide open at close distance.

Unlike Exos Lucius suggests, I'm not taking your thread to be an absolute judgment about which lens is best. It's just an addition to the samples of these lenses that show how they behave in different situations. They may not be 100% reliable data points but I don't think the results would be vastly different if you would have performed them with scientific rigor. Others often don't even manage to match exposures and use a fixed the white balance.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5