View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:15 pm Post subject: What is your sharpest/softest lens? |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Hi everybody
This is my first post, so firstly I would like to introduce myself. It all started, many years ago, when I was gifted with a Praktica LTL-3 with a 50mm F1.8 Pentacon lens. The LTL-3 was a SLR but the owner didn't have to be SLP (Single Lens Photographer) so over the years I went acquiring additional lenses…To make a long story short, I ended up with a collection of about two dozen different lenses with M42 mount (or compatible with M42, as the Zeiss Jena lenses for the Pentacon Six TL). All are fixed focal length (primes) with one only exception, a Fujinon zoom. I remember how the so called "universal" mount was despised in the seventies. Pentax, Fuji, Yashica, Chinon, and even Praktica in the end, all abandoned sooner or later the M42 mount. Ironically the M42 was to become one of the most prized mount in the digital photography era!
My lenses rested collecting dust for years until recently, when I decided to buy a FF camera body that could bring those old lenses back to life again. As a result, I am now quite busy evaluating, more or less scientifically, the resolution of all my lenses when mounted on a Sony A99…
My intention is to share the results of the tests in the next posts. However, I can already say that I got some rather surprisingly results. For example, I found out that one of my sharpest lenses is the Zeiss 80mm F2.8 Biometar, the normal lens of the Pentacon Six. Wide open, some residual aberrations can be seen, but they are quite small, and in fact, these aberrations are just what make this lens perfect for portraiture. At F5.6, and especially F8, the sharpness at the edges is extraordinary, and equals the center of the legendary 180mm F2.8 Sonnar at its best aperture. The Biometar's uniform sharpness across the field isn't totally unexpected since the Biometar was designed to cover the medium format. What is extraordinary is that it can outperforms many very good lenses, like the SMC Takumar 135mm F2.8, version 2, which was specifically designed for the135 format. Another strong point of the Biometar is a virtual absence of lateral color aberration.
In practice, the Biometar can be a very versatile lens. Are you interested in "character" and bokeh for a portrait? Use the Biometar wide open. Do you need an ultimate sharpness for a spectacular landscape? Stop down two or three points and get an exquisite definition. The Biometar is small, light, optically simple, mechanically solid, and wasn't too expensive to produce. For all these reasons, Zeiss Jena never needed to design another normal lens to replace the Biometar.
Going now to the dark side of the Moon… My softest lens appears to be the Fujinon 54-270mm F4.5, especially when used at the maximum FL. The Fujinon was the response of Fuji to the Nikon 50-300mm F4.5 zoom, a favorite among photojournalists in the seventies. Fuji acted very smartly and designed the Fujinon 54-270 by using the Nikkor 50-300 as a reference. Fuji increased the minimum FL by 8%, from 50 to 54mm, and decreased the maximum FL by 10%, from 300 to 270mm. As a result, the Fujinon has a zoom factor of 5x, while the Nikon lens has a zoom factor of 6x. In practice, this difference is not too significant, but the Fujinon could be made considerably lighter and shorter than the Nikon. And, of course, a 5x zoom should have been easier to design than a 6x.
Both lenses employ a very similar optical design with 15 elements, but Nikon claimed that an ED element was used in the front group. Fuji never commented about using low dispersion glasses, but Fuji has always been a leading name in lenses in Japan, so I have no reason to think that the optical performances of these lenses are much different. The truth is: in the seventies it was difficult to design a 5X or 6X zoom with the same resolution of a fixed focal lens. The Fujinon 54-270 is not a disaster, far from it, but the resolution at 270mm wide open is not a match to the Super Takumar 300mm F4, for example. Incidentally, I remember the member bernhardas also complained of the relative lack of sharpness of his Nikon 50-300 4.5 ED lens.
Stopped down, the Fujinon's resolution increases as expected, but never reaches a level that could be considered as very sharp. To give an idea, the Fujinon sharpness at 270mm is equivalent to a SMC Takumar 135mm plus a good 2X teleconverter. Mechanically, the Fujinon is a no-compromise design. It is all-metal and built like a tank. The screw-on front cap, for example, is a 66g aluminum disk with more metal than used in many modern lenses.
Thanks for reading'' _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013 Posts: 1207 Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
I got pretty decent results from both the Jupiter 9 ltm and the trioplan 50, both are soft wide open and become very sharp stopped down _________________ TELLTALE
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
welcome Gerald to the forum!
and then you for your interesting report, looking forward to read more from you and also to see some _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
guardian
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1746
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
guardian wrote:
Sharpest?
Hexanon 35mm f2
Softest?
Too many contenders to allow selection of a winner. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Sharpest?
Sonnar 55/1.8 [AF]
Rodagon 105/5.6, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Focotar-II 50/4.5, Summicron-M 50/2, Contax G Biogon 28/2.8 and Planar 45/2 and Sonnar 90/2.8, Voigtländer 15/4.5.... I had many damn sharp lenses, all inviting for pixel peeping.
Softest?
All faster triplets at wide apertures and some very crappy japanese zooms I had, some CCTV lenses like Fujian 35/1.7, Tarcus TV 50/1.3 and many others were rather soft aswell. And Industar 61 LD 55/2.8 LTM was one of the most disappointing lenses aswell as some people told it was and extremly sharp improved Tessar design... but actually it was only as good (or bad) as my in 1936 (!) made Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 or even worse, sweet spot was F11 etc.
But the softest I ever had was an Olympus OM 50/1.2 wide open, I still don't know if my copy was faulty but it was so extremly damn soft that only used it once and never again. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
norland
Joined: 10 Aug 2013 Posts: 165
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
norland wrote:
Of manual lenses I've actually paid for....
Best : Tair 300A f4.5
love it -- best haze-slicing lens I've got for long-distance ... very good colour and sharpness; weight its only negative.
Worst : Super Komura 300mm f5.0 Uni Auto by Sankyo Kohki, Japan
has a good lens hood and (fwiw) nicely made removable M42 mount ... shame about the optical ability |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
Sharpest: Pentax FA Limited 31mm 1:1.8 between f4.5 and f8 or Pentax FA Limited 77mm 1:1.8. between f4 and f8 They're both within one or two lp/mms of each other.
Softest: Pentax FA Limited 31mm 1:1.8 when shot wide open. It has this soft, great-for-portraits look. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
Welcome to the forum Gerald.
Sharpest: Carl Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 and the 1.8.
Softest: Prakticar Auto 135 2.8. At all apertures is very soft, wide open gives a dreamy look. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Sharpest, macros are obvious, but non macros? Most of my Topcors are very sharp wide open, but the one that makes me go wow is my FD SSC 35/2.8 Tilt Shift, I can see cells in my flower shots, it's as good as any macro I've used.
Softest? My canon AF lenses when mounted on my 30D & 40D, I have so many great shots that were just way too soft, the AF on those body's was just bad bad bad, after micro adjusting my 1DIII I realized it wasn't my technique but the shitty AF system, then with my NEX-7 I manually shot a few frames and realized just how bad the AF was.
For manual lenses, my Isco Göttingen 50/2.8 Exakta is very soft wide open and not much better stopped down. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
Edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
All lenses sharp at F8 and almost all soft wide open LOL, some exception are apply one of my exception is Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f1.9 brutal sharp at all apperture even wide open. Softest Tamron SP 150mm f2.8 in soft focus level III. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014 Posts: 351
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
Except my Canon L lenses, nothing can beat my Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 (AI) wide open, it's definitely a must have Nikon manual lens. Similar sharpness but for macro is the enlarger lens Vega-11U, I always choose this tiny lens for shooting details.
Softest, maybe Jupiter 9 (wide open), but it's also acceptable at f/4. Many of my lenses have similar sharpness around f/4 or f/5.6. _________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
kuuan wrote: |
welcome Gerald to the forum!
and then you for your interesting report, looking forward to read more from you and also to see some |
inombrable wrote: |
Welcome to the forum Gerald. |
Thank you guys!
I noticed that most lenses you considered as the sharpest had focal length in the interval 30-100mm, or so. Indeed, sharpness doesn't like extremes of angular coverage or speed. However, it seems that many of us photographers love extremes! In particular, fast lenses are as "hot" today as they were 50 years ago, when film was 100X less sensitive than the modern CMOS sensor.
It is interesting to see that many people accept to pay ridiculous amount of money for a little faster lens. For example, the Leica Summilux M 1.4/50 and the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 cost $4000 each, whereas a Helios 44 2/58 can be bought second-hand by $20. In other words, the Leica and the Zeiss are 2X (one stop) faster than the Helios, but cost 200X more! Now you could say: Hey, remember that the Leica and the Zeiss are extremely sharp lenses, even wide open! Are they, really?
I tested my Helios 44-4 and measured the MTF50 for all apertures. The test procedure I used was virtually identical to that by Lenstip, so I believe the results can be directly compared. Bellow the link to the Lenstip data:
http://www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
Leica Summilux M 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 27 lp/mm
Edge: 15 lp/mm
Zeiss Otus 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 38 lp/mm
Edge: 28 lp/mm
How does the Helios compare to those "monsters"?
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2 (wide open)
Center: 32 lp/mm
Edge: 14 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2.8 (one stop down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 18 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F4 (two stops down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 26 lp/mm
Conclusions
1. The resolution wide open of Helios and Leica are virtually identical (Helios one stop slower than Leica).
2. Helios at F4 catches up with the Zeiss lens wide open (Helios three stops slower than Otus). _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am not fond of Leica and I like Russian and East German items, I had Leica-R 50mm f1.4 once , Helios is not come to close from any aspects , lens is not only an lpm statistic. Leica-R price is not 1000 USD because buyers have no brain and easy to replace with Helios-44 . Zeiss and Leica usually step before others, Zeiss is much more affordable even if perform same than Leica or even better. For professional work I always select Zeiss, I buy and sell Leica I can't afford to keep them for multiply more price than Carl Zeiss (Jena) items. I did test several thousands lenses, cameras only sharp or not sharp not say much about a lens. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Interesting opinions from you Gerald.
I agree that there is too much stress on large aperture nowadays.
As a result , many pictures shown as benchmark are simply unsharp. It is a fashion.
I recently bought a A7 and constantly struggle to have enough depth of field . I prefer to find a backgroung for portrait which is not so disturbing so that I can shoot f4 or f5.6 with my 105mm.
A nice bokeh is fine but not to the expense of subject's sharpness. Of course it is my taste and even for me it suffers exceptions.
About 50mm 1.4 lenses they are often (but not always) sharper at f2 than 50mm f2 lenses. It can be another reason to have one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
Edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Far, far, far too much emphasis is put on the sharpness of lenses. Quite simply, a lens is either sharp enough (for the taste of the user) or it isn't, end of story. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Ah I almost forgot... in terms of physical resolution, uncoupled to magnifcation, my highest resolving lens is a Celestron 2000mm F10
Gerald wrote: |
...
Leica Summilux M 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 27 lp/mm
Edge: 15 lp/mm
Zeiss Otus 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 38 lp/mm
Edge: 28 lp/mm
How does the Helios compare to those "monsters"?
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2 (wide open)
Center: 32 lp/mm
Edge: 14 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2.8 (one stop down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 18 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F4 (two stops down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 26 lp/mm
Conclusions
1. The resolution wide open of Helios and Leica are virtually identical (Helios one stop slower than Leica).
2. Helios at F4 catches up with the Zeiss lens wide open (Helios three stops slower than Otus). |
-These numbers depend a lot of used sensor, sensor size, used light set up(!), contrast of target, correct magnification ratio etc..
-I have modern Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8 which said to be nearly as good as the Otus and I had several and kept the best Helios 44 - my Helios 44 has no chance at all, not in a single term, even stopped down. On my FF-sensor the Helios has a slight chance @F5.6 VS the Sonnar wide open in terms of resolution and vignetting, but still not in colors and contrast etc.,. If you stop the Sonnar down to F2.5 or lower etc., it's better than the Helios at it's sweet spot apertures. At same aperture fine detail captured is not even comparable, the Sonnar JPEG files have often about the double file size than Helios 44 pictures
-Even only 20% more or less resolution can make a huge difference in how the image looks.
-But anyway a lens is MUCH more than lp/mm - contrast, colors, bokeh, vignetting, build, haptics, speed, CA control, flatness of the field, size, etc. are also very important.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the Helios 44
But I can understand why many people are paying 1k€ or more for a lens which is techically "only" 1.5x times better than a lens which costs as much as a breakfast.
Also many people (especially here in this Forum ) have ten or more 40-60mm lenses worth 10-150€ each, why not buying one for ~500€ instead which is better than all others - you can only use one them at a time anyway. And it's much lighter when traveling
You have to ask yourself: Are the pics you are making worth the money (for yourself or your work)? If yes it's not stupid to buy an expensive lens when you are able to afford it imho. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
I haven't objectively measured the sharpness of my lenses, but manual focus ones that come to mind when I think of the most impressively* sharp lenses are Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (especially edge sharpness on full frame wide open beats many famous lenses, including macros), and P6 CZJ MC Sonnar 180mm f/2.8.
* By “impressively” I mean that the lens subjectively exceeds my expectations. For example, if I had bought the Zeiss Otus, which I haven't, I would expect it to be my sharpest lens, but I wouldn't consider it particularly impressive compared to my expectations and the price. If that makes any sense.
Last edited by Arkku on Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
Edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sammo
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Posts: 223 Location: CH and SI
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
sammo wrote:
It could be that my softest lens is also the sharpest, depending on the aperture used...nikkor ais 50 f/1.2. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Ah I almost forgot... in terms of physical resolution, uncoupled to magnifcation, my highest resolving lens is a Celestron 2000mm F10
Gerald wrote: |
...
Leica Summilux M 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 27 lp/mm
Edge: 15 lp/mm
Zeiss Otus 1.4/50 @F1.4 (wide open)
Center: 38 lp/mm
Edge: 28 lp/mm
How does the Helios compare to those "monsters"?
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2 (wide open)
Center: 32 lp/mm
Edge: 14 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F2.8 (one stop down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 18 lp/mm
Helios 44-4 2/58 @F4 (two stops down)
Center: 40 lp/mm
Edge: 26 lp/mm
Conclusions
1. The resolution wide open of Helios and Leica are virtually identical (Helios one stop slower than Leica).
2. Helios at F4 catches up with the Zeiss lens wide open (Helios three stops slower than Otus). |
-These numbers depend a lot of used sensor, sensor size, used light set up(!), contrast of target, correct magnification ratio etc.. |
These numbers are comparable because the test conditions were the same. Note that these numbers are for MTF-50, not the "ultimate" resolution, which is given by MTF-10.
ForenSeil wrote: |
I have modern Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8 which said to be nearly as good as the Otus and I had several and kept the best Helios 44 - my Helios 44 has no chance at all, not in a single term, even stopped down. On my FF-sensor the Helios has a slight chance @F5.6 VS the Sonnar wide open in terms of resolution and vignetting, but still not in colors and contrast etc.,. |
Yes, the Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8 is a spectacular lens, and, in my opinion, its design is much more rational than Otus's.
ForenSeil wrote: |
-Even only 20% more or less resolution can make a huge difference in how the image looks. |
My experience is different. Is a difference in resolution of 20% easily visible?
Take a look at the picture below, which is a 100% crop of a test chart used to calculate MTF-50 by the method called "slanted edge". The numbers on the rectangles give MTF-50 cycles/pixel (the MTF-50 in lp/mm can be calculated by multiplying those values by 167).
The numbers show that the vertical transitions (sagittal) are sharper than the vertical ones (meridional), and that the differences of the MTF-50 are more than 20%. Observe now the drawing with vertical and horizontal lines. Can you see that the vertical lines are much sharper than the horizontal? I can't.
It is interesting to note that many perfectly good lenses have resolution that varies 20% or more for points equidistant from the center, as you can see in many Imatest diagrams shown by Roger Cicala in his articles.
ForenSeil wrote: |
But I can understand why many people are paying 1k€ or more for a lens which is techically "only" 1.5x times better than a lens which costs as much as a breakfast.
Also many people (especially here in this Forum ) have ten or more 40-60mm lenses worth 10-150€ each, why not buying one for ~500€ instead which is better than all others - you can only use one them at a time anyway. And it's much lighter when traveling |
Very good points! I totally agree.
Arkku wrote: |
I haven't objectively measured the sharpness of my lenses, but manual focus ones that come to mind when I think of the most impressively* sharp lenses are Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (especially edge sharpness on full frame wide open beats many famous lenses, including macros), and P6 CZJ MC Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. |
Few lenses have the magic of the Sonnar 180mm F/2.8. The thick triplet is something to be seen. It has glass enough to make ten 50mm F/1.8 lenses!
bernhardas wrote: |
The worst available light where I live is about 5 min after sundown and before full darkness everything looks grey washed out and mushy with most of my lenses. When I tried the Zeiss/contax MMJ sonnar 135 2.8 I could not believe my LCD.
Vibrant colors and definition of detail in shitty light! |
Nice picture of a beautiful dog! I wonder what the dog was thinking at the time…
Conceptually, a lens is nothing more than a collection of pieces of glass that change the direction of the rays of light. The glass should be totally transparent, so any color cast should be seen as a defect, and not a quality of a lens.
Contrary to what many people think, a good lens doesn't increase contrast or enrich colors. A lens is basically a collection of pieces of glass whose surfaces should only diffract (change the direction of) the rays of light.
Whashed out colors is an indication that one or more optical elements are "dirty". Over time, a hazy film can form over the glass surfaces, so many old lenses suffer from low constrast and washed out colors caused by those foggy elements. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
Edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 7:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
bernhardas wrote: |
In my opinion ( and I refrain from postulating it as a universal truth, as it always good to distinguish between fact and opinion) the purpose of a picture is to have a strong visual impact on the viewers. |
A picture doesn't have a purpose; people have. People use a picture for thousands of different purposes, including causing an impact on the viewers.
bernhardas wrote: |
You obviously did not have the time to digest the link I posted earlier. |
In fact, I read the text (some parts to be exact), but thought it wasn't too relevant to the discussion. The text is very interesting. After reading it, I could understand, for example, that one buys a Zeiss Otus because he has nothing better to do with his money than spending $4000 on that lens.
bernhardas wrote: |
Now we come to your original question: Why do people pay 500% more for lens x even if lens y is only 20% less sharp?
Answer: Either the 20% sharpness matters for them! or sharpness is irrelevant in their decision, because another factor like contrast or transmission profile of colors is more important for them. |
I don't remember that I asked why someone wants to spend a small fortune in a single lens.
My point was to show that sharpness can be very cheap if someone gives up one, two or three F-stops.
bernhardas wrote: |
In my example above I was not referring to broken lenses, but the observable fact that the transmission characteristics of lenses seems to change with falling light intensity. |
No, that is not correct! The transmission characteristic of a lens is independent of the light intensity. It doesn't matter if you are shooting stars on a dark night, or a beach scene at noon, the transmission characteristic of the lens is always the same.
The transmission of a modern photographic lens is around 90%, what means that the intensity of the light exiting the lens is around 90% of the intensity of the light entering the lens.
The actual transmission of a (imperfect) real lens depends a little of the wavelength (color) of the light, as this article shows:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Infrared/ZeissZF-prototypes-infrared.html
Now, why does someone have the impression "that the transmission characteristics of lenses seems to change with falling light intensity"?
I can think in two effects that explains that false impression.
First, differently of a lens, our eyes lose sensitivity as the light intensity diminishes. Indeed, a perfectly exposed picture taken at dusk will appear to be more colorful than what our yes see.
Second, although the intrinsic relative sensitivity to colors of a CMOS sensor doesn't change with the light intensity, the digital processing inside a camera attenuates the "chroma" (information of color) for high ISO settings. The higher the ISO, the more the chroma is attenuated. Why the camera kills the chroma? Because the camera circuits try their best to filter out the "chroma noise" in a valiant attempt to improve the IQ, but the camera cannot distinguish well the chroma signal from the chroma noise. The result is that Baby Moses (colors) is thrown out along the dirty water (chroma noise).
bernhardas wrote: |
P.S reading the post it might sound a bit more harsh and confrontational than intended. |
Don’t be worried. I know you are a respectful person that can maintain a high-level discussion. This is a forum and differences of opinion are inevitable. Besides, I only learn from people that think differently than me. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
+1 that colors can be very important.
I would pay 25% more for my Sonnar 55/1.8 if it had modern natural Leitz colors instead of poppy Zeiss T* colors and another 25% if it had slightly more harmoic bokeh, even if it would kill a little contrast and a tad resolution. But only lens I know which should fit that demands is the over-overly expensive Apo-Summicron 50/2 which's price is very far above my personal pain limit (about 6000€ in local camera store I think).
But I'm a guy who became quite nerdy with colors the last two years. That's also why I don't like to use many sovjet- and Canon lenses, as well as several Zeiss T* and CZJ and others I know, simply because I don't like their colors sheme (anymore). But actually most people don't even see the small difference.
PS: As far as I know the sharpest mass produced lens for 35mm is the Zeiss ZM Biogon 25/2.8. It reaches something around 400lp/mm in center between F2.8 and F4. "Only" around 1000€ new and 650-750 used - what a bargain compared to Otus and Apo-Cron which are both much softer ;D
Unfortunately it doesn't harmonise well with most modern digital sensors (except Leica M Mononchrom I think), both in center but especially in the corners, otherwise it would be a must have for me. At the moment you can only use it's full resolution with ISO3-ISO6 B/W film . I hope that the 54MP Sony A9 will solve most of that issue in early 2015, than my wet pixel peeping dreams might come true, even if 54mp would be sz´till not enough to outresolve that lens _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|