View Full Version : Non-formal Testing of 85mm~105mm Lenses
I just completed putting together the results from the roll of color film (Fuji 100) for my test of rangefinder lenses below:
1. Summicron 90mm/2 (first version)
2. Canon 85mm/1.9
3. Canon 85mm/1.8 (Mark)
4. Nikkor 85mm/2 (Roland)
5. ZK 85/f2 (1950 "Zonnar Krasnogorski") in Cyrillic "3K 85/f2". (Roland)
6. Elmarit 90mm/2.8 (old design)
7. Steinheil 85mm/2.8
8. Nikkor 105mm/2.5 (Kiu)
9. Elmar (chrome, coated) 90mm/4
10. Elmar (black, coated, different aperture clicks from chrome) 90mm/4
This is by no means a standardized test where MTF curves or color charts are used or where lines are being measured. It is a simple way of looking at results obtained from different lenses to see how these lenses render a face.
I encountered some problems on the way. A 24 exposure roll was barely sufficient to cover all cases. My daughter sometimes moved and I would get a blur. My appologies to the owners of the lenses if one shot got messed up with your lenses. I know that you want your lenses to shine.
I know that some of you voiced an opinion that you do not want to look at 24 different photos side by side. Therefore, I grouped the photos in groups of two lenses at a time. Maybe this grouping makes it easier to see differences.
I will later post the results for B&W. Hopefully, the cases that were blurred here will come out sharp there. I will also later post the results of the thrird roll of film for flare and bokeh.
Again, no appologies about a simple way of testing, but a hint to take things with a grain of salt.
When pointing the mouse on any photo, the lens information and aperture setting will be displayed.
Here is the link to the groups of photos:
Elmar 90mm/4 chrome lens and black lens
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626534
Nikkor 105mm/2.5 and Nikkor 85mm/2.0
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626537
Steinheil 90mm/2.8 and Elmarit 90mm/2.8
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626544
Canon 85mm/1.8 and 85mm/1.9
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626547
Summicron 90mm/2 and ZK 85/f2 (1950 "Zonnar Krasnogorski")
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626548
Your comments are always welcome.
Raid
If we take a look at the Steinheil lens and the Elmarit,
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626544,
I note the following:
1. The Steinheil lens is sharp wide open.
2. The photos taken with the Steinheil look cooler (color) than those taken with the Elmarit.
3. The photo taken with the Elmarit at 4.0 has a blur since Dana moved suddenly. At 4.0, Dana sits still, and the Elmarit shows its sharpness.
Raid, as noted by ferider, fast turn-around time on the test and results. Thanks once again for the lens test.
Only glanced that the shots quickly, and will have to go and look again, but it appears that the nikkor 85/2 suffered from focus issues- the design on the chair that your daughter was sitting in was rendered much more clear than her face. I did not see much difference between the Canon 85/1.8 and the 85/1.9 at the smaller aperatures, but the 85/1.8 really shines at @2.0. May post again after further study.
Raid, as noted by ferider, fast turn-around time on the test and results. Thanks once again for the lens test.
Only glanced that the shots quickly, and will have to go and look again, but it appears that the nikkor 85/2 suffered from focus issues- the design on the chair that your daughter was sitting in was rendered much more clear than her face. I did not see much difference between the Canon 85/1.8 and the 85/1.9 at the smaller aperatures, but the 85/1.8 really shines at @2.0. May post again after further study.
Mark,
I hope that the B&W shots will not suffer from blurring for the Nikkor 85mm lens. I was quite happy to see the old Canon 85mm/1.9 do so well with the Canon 85mm/1.8.
Raid
All the pics are broken links..
You can see that the f2.8 Nikkor shot is sharp. It must be hard to focus a moving child with an external finder. I have numerous shots with that lens that are very sharp close up. See
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5976
all the color ones are shot at f2.
Roland.
Yes, the 2.8 shot is sharp.
I just got back a roll of film taken with the Nikkor 85mm/2 lens.
The lens is sharp. I am also concluding that an external multiple focal lengths finder is not the best to use with tele lenses.
Raid
Yes, the 2.8 shot is sharp.
I just got back a roll of film taken with the Nikkor 85mm/2 lens.
The lens is sharp. I am also concluding that an external multiple focal lengths finder is not the best to use with tele lenses.
Raid
Yes, I agree that the 2.8 shot is nice and sharp. I should have been more specific, it's the one at 2.0 that was out of focus. Raid, I can understand how difficult it is to get good focus on a moving subject.
Yes, I agree that the 2.8 shot is nice and sharp. I should have been more specific, it's the one at 2.0 that was out of focus. Raid, I can understand how difficult it is to get good focus on a moving subject.
Mark,
The chosen film was too slow.
I got great colors, but at the expense of risking blurring.
I hope that when I get back the B&W film that we will have another replicate of the posted test,and then we can also compare across rolls of film.
It took some thinking to pick the correct lens for a shot, and it was also a little problem to keep track which photo was taken by which lens and at which aperture when getting the scanned rollback. I double and triple checked the scans and the written notes that I have to make sure that the correct labeling is used for each photo.
I also had to have the right lens hood for each lens and also the M adapter for the screwmount lenses. I used a cable release in all photos.
Regards,
Raid
All the pics are broken links..
What do you mean?
The posted links should take you to the photos. They do for me.
Let me know of the problem you encounter.
Raid
Now the pics are working.. earlier, none of the pics showed up.
Rich Silfver
07-30-2006, 19:07
Nice.
I'm curious about the very strong differences in sharpnes between the teo Elmar 90/4 lenses (black vs chrome).
Is the chome a later model?
Nice.
I'm curious about the very strong differences in sharpnes between the teo Elmar 90/4 lenses (black vs chrome).
Is the chome a later model?
Rich,
The chrome one has a focusing turn to the left whereas the black one rotates to the right. Both have lenses with a blueish tint, implying coating.
The chrome lens has SN 720xxx and the black one has SN 606xxx.
Actually, both are nice for portraits. I hope that the B&W shots will shed more light on these differences.
Note that the first two test shots (in the experiment) were of the chrome Elmar.
Maybe my eyes were not picking up the focus point.
Raid
Raid, this is OT to this thread, but I think this is a great capture of subtle expression :
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4745894
Raid
Nice shots and I loved the color rendition in these. Pretty subject too - your daughter, I take it. (I have seen her in other posts by you.) I am the same with my wife - she is very photogenic so she gets the job of being model pretty much all the time.
Now down to business. I found it hard to make out much difference in these given that they are scans and quite small ones at that. However like some others I noticed that several shots including some from your black Elmar 90mm were suffering from what looked like focus problems or maybe camera shake although to my eye it looked more like the former. I had a Canon 85mm f 1.8 and a Serenar 135mm f 4 once and never could get either of them to focus worth a damn so I know ti can be a problem with some lenses.
Nevertheless, keep up the good work.
Peter
NIKON KIU
07-30-2006, 20:53
Wow, I missed a lot! Got a lotta reading...
Kiu
Lovely photos. I have to say I didn't see a rotten lens in the bunch. Less vignetting than I expected on the older lenses.
The ZK's rendition is markedly warmer than that of the Summicron. Same lighting?
Focusing with ten different lenses can be a challenge. Once my hands and eyes got used to the lens, I switched toa nother lens. The testing had to be completed with this roll of film while my other daughter was taking her afternoon nap. I nowklnow that I need to do more testing to replace the messed up shots due to poor focusing.
I agree that no lens came out as a dog. When properly fcusedand when Dana sat still, the photos are sharp.
I am now seeing the disadvantage of the Bessa T; it doesnot have a viewfinder. I must focus first, take my eye to the external viewfinder and then takethe photo. By that time, Dana may have moved slightly. With a tele lens and at available lightwith an ASA 100 film, those seconds can make a difefrence in the focus point.
My bokeh test results are not to my liking. Does anyone have some ideas how to doan indoor bokeh test?
Raid
P.S. I am glad that the test is well received overall. Thanks.
Separate finders really aren't too practical for telephotos. Close to 20 years ago I shot a Kiev and a Nikon S2 (just 50mm framelines) with telephoto lenses for awhile. I found that if you used a separate finder, it worked far better to frame first, then switch back to the RF patch and keep follow-focusing until the moment was right for taking the photo. This is the opposite of how to best handle wide-angles, where the focus isn't as critical.
I found that once I got used to the coverage of telephotos, I was pretty good at estimating framing using just the central RF patch and visualizing how the lens coverage differs from a 50mm lens. With an RF camera and parallax, telephoto shots (mine anyway) tend to be a little more loosely composed. I hardly ever crop my wide-angle or 50mm shots, but I do tend to crop the telephoto shots a bit to optimize their composition.
Raid, thanks for the test. Good stuff here, I can't wait to get a chance to really look over all of the shots.
Separate finders really aren't too practical for telephotos. Close to 20 years ago I shot a Kiev and a Nikon S2 (just 50mm framelines) with telephoto lenses for awhile. I found that if you used a separate finder, it worked far better to frame first, then switch back to the RF patch and keep follow-focusing until the moment was right for taking the photo. This is the opposite of how to best handle wide-angles, where the focus isn't as critical.
I found that once I got used to the coverage of telephotos, I was pretty good at estimating framing using just the central RF patch and visualizing how the lens coverage differs from a 50mm lens. With an RF camera and parallax, telephoto shots (mine anyway) tend to be a little more loosely composed. I hardly ever crop my wide-angle or 50mm shots, but I do tend to crop the telephoto shots a bit to optimize their composition.
Vince,
Your technique still would not work fully if you had a moving object, as I had with Dana. By the time I focus, she may be outside the frame. She kept on changing her sitting position on the chair.
Raid
She's generally centered in your tests, so I think you could use the external finder to get a very general sense of the lens coverage, then just worry about focus.
With my daughters, I try to keep one or both of their eyes in the rangefinder patch, or their face if they're further away. Precise composition isn't as important as getting and keeping them in focus. My Nikon S3 doesn't have parallax correction, just an etched frame for the 105. So composition is really a matter of just making sure you're not too framing too loose.
Vince,
I could do that too. I think, the main source of occasional blur may have been my focusing.
raid
Raid, this is OT to this thread, but I think this is a great capture of subtle expression :
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4745894
Thanks, George. I try to get good photos of my daughter(s) while doing a simple test. Everybody is happy then.
Raid
Raid,
the photos you just posted in the RFF gallery are really nice as well.
Like they say in France: in a few years you will have to keep a machine gun at home :)
Roland.
Roland,
Thanks. They were taken with the Nikkor 85mm lens wide open [I think].
I always love that one scene in a movie on a Mafia father where he advises his daughter's date that he he needs her back before 10pm and that he happens to own a gun and a shovel ;-)
Raid
I just took another look at B&W (flare) photos taken with the black Elmar; they are also fuzzy like the colorphotos. This tells me that there is a defect in the lens.
Raid
The Canon 85/1.9 looks to be equally sharp as the Nikon 105/2.5 and the Summicron 90/2. It maybe is even sharper but hard to tell because they are close. I could be biased because I have one but I am looking really hard here. Great test so far Raid with more to look forward to. :D :D
John,
Yes, "our" Canon 85mm/1.9 came out shining.
I posted the same thread on PN to see if some of the bitter and closed minded idiots still show up there in the Leica Forum. Of course, the rest are great people there in that Forum. It has little to do with how they perceived my thread. It is their attitude. Some people seem to have nothing else on their minds except to whine and grumble and complain.
Thanks for having the RFF.
Raid
Well done Raid! That was a lot of work, thank you.
Bonus: you ended up with many lovely shots!
NIKON KIU
08-01-2006, 12:35
Bonus: you ended up with many lovely shots!
Double bonus: You got to use some lenses you didn't have!
My bonus: I got you infected with NAS which is a far more serious version of GAS:cool: :)
Kiu
Raid, still have the itch for a Nikkor 85/2, now that you have compared it to your Canon 85/1.9? I honestly did not see a whole lot of difference between any of the lenses in the tests. It may be focusing difficulties or subject movement, but I personally would give the edge to your Canon over the Nikkor. I not not attempting to start a flame war- I have a couple of Nikkors in Contax RF mount, and they are great lenses.
I was especially interested in the Steinheil, only because I had never used one, or seen pictures taken with one. Great performance from a relatively unappreciated lens (at least as judged by eBay sale prices).
Looking forward to the B & W test shots.
>>I posted the same thread on PN to see if some of the bitter and closed minded idiots still show up there in the Leica Forum.<<
Looks like they did. Last time I checked, they were in a food fight over the Soviet/Zeiss 85.
The black Elmar needs some shimming to make it focus properly.
Maybe Brian Sweeney can help?
I have now added a roll of Ilford XP2 Super for the same set-up as with the color film. Things got more difficult here; Dana was getting bored; it started to rain and the sky turned dark, making an exposure at F 8.0 require shutter speed 1/2.
I was stretching things out too much in the test. I had only one shot per case,and it had to be done quickly. At speeds like 1/2 second,with Dana getting more and more bored, it was very hard to get a sharp photo consistently. I view the B&W shots as replicated for the color shots.
The black Elmar cameout consistently focused incorrectly, indicating a need for some shimming and not a need for cleaning. I used a light to shine through the lens and I could not seeany fogging or haze.
I hope that my simple way of testing the lenses has provided some of you with some useful indicators.
Raid
Well done Raid! That was a lot of work, thank you.
Bonus: you ended up with many lovely shots!
Frank: Thanks. Yes, I got a few nice photos of my daughter.
The B@W shots may reveal the same patterns.
Raid
Double bonus: You got to use some lenses you didn't have!
My bonus: I got you infected with NAS which is a far more serious version of GAS:cool: :)
Kiu
Kiu,
It depends on how serious the NAS is ...maybe you can help out making it less "damaging" :angel:
raid
>>I posted the same thread on PN to see if some of the bitter and closed minded idiots still show up there in the Leica Forum.<<
Looks like they did. Last time I checked, they were in a food fight over the Soviet/Zeiss 85.
Vinc,
Isn't it amazing that some of the guys simply enjoy talking about stupid unimportant things there.
Raid
Raid, still have the itch for a Nikkor 85/2, now that you have compared it to your Canon 85/1.9? I honestly did not see a whole lot of difference between any of the lenses in the tests. It may be focusing difficulties or subject movement, but I personally would give the edge to your Canon over the Nikkor. I not not attempting to start a flame war- I have a couple of Nikkors in Contax RF mount, and they are great lenses.
I was especially interested in the Steinheil, only because I had never used one, or seen pictures taken with one. Great performance from a relatively unappreciated lens (at least as judged by eBay sale prices).
Looking forward to the B & W test shots.
Mark,
I will not comment on any "itches"for the time being, but the Canon came out looking like a star. The Steinheil is a light and sharp lens. It is cheap and underappreciated.
I have posted B&W results.
Raid
Mark,
I will not comment on any "itches"for the time being, but the Canon came out looking like a star. The Steinheil is a light and sharp lens. It is cheap and underappreciated.
I have posted B&W results.
Raid
They are nice, Raid.
I could only see a difference between the Nikkor 85/2 and the Canon 85/2 (supposedly similar to the 1.9) in extreme conditions. Here are shots against "bad background" for the Canon. Left is a full picture, right a center crop ...
Roland.
IGMeanwell
08-01-2006, 18:50
Raid ... Congrats on getting your daughter to stay in one place long enough to test all these lenses!!
The Nikkor 105 didn't seem all that sharp, however I liked the portrait feel of that lens over everything but the summicron ...
And here for the Nikkor, also wide open
The Nikkor to me has a bit more pleasant bookeh and is sharper.
The Canon 85/1.9 does behave admirably in Raid's more practical tests.
Roland.
PS: More 85/90 "Gas lamp" tests in http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/1171067
I posted the same thread on PN to see if some of the bitter and closed minded idiots still show up there in the Leica Forum.
Raid ! I would never have expected such emotions from you :)
(And they did show up ...)
I really appreciate your work on the test, Raid. Puts GAS in perspective ....
Roland.
Roland,
I still need to re-do a bokeh test.
Doing such a test indoors has failed for me; doing one outdoors will be bad since it is hot and humid in Florida in the summer.
Nice test shots by you.
Raid
Raid ! I would never have expected such emotions from you :)
(And they did show up ...)
I really appreciate your work on the test, Raid. Puts GAS in perspective ....
Roland.
Roland,
I used to be at the Leica Forum (PN) every evening, but it became tiring to be nice and not respond to any disrespectful remarks made there. I went back for a "visit",and I saw the same guys saying the same type of things again.
Regards,
Raid
Ferider's tests with the bright and dark leaves and branches in the distant background are a good way to test bokeh. The few shots where a "bad bokeh" lens has caught my attention were taken in the woods.
I will try to do such a test in the backyard without being eaten by mosquitos.
Raid
Hi Raid,
maybe you have a kitchen window or such, looking out into the yard in the morning or evening ? Similar to what Puts did here
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html
to test the bokeh (but: you might not want to compare two lenses at different apertures like he did ! :) ) (attached picture from Puts' website).
I am not worried about mosquitos biting you, but it would be unfair to the
model(s), even with ice cream :)
Roland.
Hi Raid,
maybe you have a kitchen window or such, looking out into the yard in the morning or evening ? Similar to what Puts did here
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html
to test the bokeh (but: you might not want to compare two lenses at different apertures like he did ! :) ) (attached picture from Puts' website).
I am not worried about mosquitos biting you, but it would be unfair to the
model(s), even with ice cream :)
Roland.
Hi Roland,
I am considering not to use a person for the bokeh test so that hopefully all photos will come out sharp when they are supposed to be sharp.
Shooting out of a window is a possibility. The other option is to use the front porch.
I recall the report by Puts. Some people here complained that the model was too good looking to allow concentration on lens performance!
Raid
To be honest, with a bokeh test, the sharpness of the subject is less critical.
Vince,
This is good to know. I did a bokeh test that I don't like.
I placed a bottle on a table, with a light source from one side {as a source for flare) and a background light for bokeh.
The Zonnar lens messed things up for me since its minimum distance for focusing was greater than the rest of the lenses. Once I repositioned the set-up, the test was not valid anymore.
By the way, I have noticed that none of the newly added B&W test shots has a "view" count. has anyone here atken a look at the B&W shots?
Raid
I did look at some, Raid.
Roland.
I appreciate color photos, but the black-and-whites just look a little nicer to me.
Raid, I have looked at most of the B & W shots.
Thanks guys. For some reason, when I look at the color photos, it shows me the number of views, but it did not when I looked at the B&W photos.
I know that there is only a limited number of people here who really have an interest in such tests, and this is why I did the testing anyways.
Some of my feelings about the results:
The Summicron came out very well [to my eyes and on my two PCs].
Nice creamy rendition of the face and overall photo.
The Steinheil while a little inferior in the quality of finish came out very well too.
It is a good performer for so little money.
The Elmar [black] either needs shimming or it did not mount correctly on the T with the M adapter.
The Canon lenses did very well overall and they are not optically inferior to the Nikkors based on the overall test so far.
I will look for a better external finder for my 85mm lens.
The M3 will become my workhorse soon.
Raid
Your subject does not have to be live, Raid, since it's the out of focus background you're after.
It might be an idea to take two pictures with each lens: one with camera-subject distance constant, the other with camera moved so that image size remains constant. There isn't all that much difference between 85 and 105, of course. Because your lenses are divided into three sets based on maximum aperture, only a comparison between all lenses at the largest aperture of the slowest lenses will be valid, strictly speaking. The effects of opening up the faster lenses will show other things, of course, also valuable.
Raid,
An M3 seems like a nice workhorse.
I was impressed by the Canon lenses. On the other hand, it doesn't appear there's a bad lens in the bunch.
Hi Raid,
like Vince said, there doesn't appear to be a bad lens in the test. Although prices vary, differences are small. This for me is a major result of your tests
itself - one doesn't need to buy very expensive lenses for good portraits ....
However, I wonder if these small differences (besides
bokeh behavior, your tests of which I am looking forward to)
can be characterized, say to help somebody
buying a used lens given a certain budget. I am particularly interested in the {85,90}/2 lenses. The 105/2.5 and the ZK 85/2 are kind of special lenses;
if somebody buys either, (s)he knows exactly what (s)he wants. Even if
the ZK (IMO) behaves very similar to a J-9 or CZJ Sonnar, it is very
difficult to find a well calibrated J-9 and very expensive to find an LTM
Sonnar (which is the reason why I got the ZK).
In particular, how does the
- Canon 85/1.9 compare to the Canon 85/1.8 in terms of resolution. For example, could we zoom into the scan of some wide open, in-focus shots,
say the eye of your daughter and see if there is a difference ? Also how about center vs corner sharpness ? The 85/1.8 is a cult lens and much more expensive than the 1.9 (or 2). Stephen says on his website that the 1.8 is one of the best 85's ever built ...
- Canon 85/1.8, Summicron 90/2, Nikkor 85/2: all kind of in the same price class depending on condition. What are the differences here ?
And yes, I do regret not sending you one of my Leicas for the tests .... Would have driven the shipping costs up, though.
Just thinking loud. Thanks,
Roland.
Roland,
Maybe I should take a roll of photos of something fixed, like a brick wall. I have a feeling that all lenses will show very clearly the bricks ... edge to edge. As long as you, Kiu and Mark do not want immediately your lenses back, I can plan for the upcoming weeked some testing.
I have taken a few times a look at enlarged areas of Dana's photos. This would be quite useful with images that show up equally sharp (unenlarged).
I will do some more work in this testing.
Thanks for the constructive input from all of you who have done so.
Raid
Raid,
An M3 seems like a nice workhorse.
I was impressed by the Canon lenses. On the other hand, it doesn't appear there's a bad lens in the bunch.
Vince,
This is the point that I was trying to make. As I have several medium tele lenses, I always felt that any of them gave me excellent results. There was always a small edge for the Summicron though.
raid
Roland,
As long as you, Kiu and Mark do not want immediately your lenses back, I can plan for the upcoming weeked some testing.
Raid
Raid, no big hurry on returning the lens.
Roland,
Maybe I should take a roll of photos of something fixed, like a brick wall. I have a feeling that all lenses will show very clearly the bricks ... edge to edge. As long as you, Kiu and Mark do not want immediately your lenses back, I can plan for the upcoming weeked some testing.
I have taken a few times a look at enlarged areas of Dana's photos. This would be quite useful with images that show up equally sharp (unenlarged).
I will do some more work in this testing.
Thanks for the constructive input from all of you who have done so.
Raid
Hi Raid,
no rush in getting my lenses back. There is a worthy substitute for my chrome Nikkor at home (check my Avatar) :-)
I once saw some combined bokeh/resolution tests where somebody put a bottle of beer on the railing of his balcony. You could see the background and when zooming in read the label of the bottle. Since I am German this sounds nicer than a brick wall :) Written stuff is great to get a feeling for resolution, IMO.
Roland.
Thanks Mark and Roland. I will then plan a test for this weekend.
I will use several bottles and not one bottle.
maybe I can arrange the bottles one after the other and I will focus on the first bottle. This way, there will be an out of focus effect with the rest of the bottles. Or, I use the background for bokeh with one bottle.
Roland, which lens do you have in your [small] Avatar? is it the smaller black nikkor 85mm lens?
Raid
Hi Raid,
here is a bigger version of the avatar. The M6 is carrying the Nikkor. Same size as the chrome one, but no hood for the photo. The M2 carries the Canon 35/2.
Cheers,
Roland.
Hi Raid,
here is a bigger version of the avatar. The M6 is carrying the Nikkor. Same size as the chrome one, but no hood for the photo. The M2 carries the Canon 35/2.
Cheers,
Roland.
Hi Roland,
Thanks for the enlarged avatar. Cool!
I will wrap up the test this weekend hopefully.
raid
I took two rolls of film today, and hereby have completed my testing.
First, I took a roll of film with the Canon 85mm/1.8 just to see if the images come out different than with the 85mm/1.9 that I own. I have already in recent weeks taken one roll with the Nikkor 105 and one roll with the Nikkor 85.
Then I did the bokeh test.
I placed two bottles on the porch fence, and I chose as background the street and neighbor's house. If all goes well, I should have a light and dark background, as someone has suggested here.
To make things easy for me, I skipped using a tipod. I managed to use shutterspeeds around 1/1000 ~1/2000 with Fujicolor 200 film.
I took two identical photos at max aperture with each lens.
I hope to have the film developed very soon.
Raid
Here is the first replicate for the bokeh test.
I hope that you can benefit from the photos.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=628757
If you want to see the second replicate, just let me know.
I thought that having all ten images on one page makes comparisons easier for you.
Raid
Remarkable Zeiss! I do not own one.
Johne
Thanks for your effort in this, Raid.
Remarkable Zeiss! I do not own one.
Johne
Thanks for your effort in this, Raid.
Glad you like the results, Johne. The lens labeled as Zeiss is a special Jupiter lens that has in it glass by Zeiss. Roland owns this lens and he refers to it by its exact name.I stated the full name in the beginning of this thread.
Raid
Note that the black Elmar now focuses on the right plane. It turned out to be a problem of matching between the Elmar and that specific M adapter which caused the incorrect focus in the previous posting on the black Elmar. This time, I forced the lens to be screwed on tightly, thereby damaging the adapter but getting focus. :-)
Raid
Raid,
I do have a jupiter 85 and love it.
Johne
I don't have a Jupiter tele lens except the J-3 (50mm/1.5), but it seems that people like them.
It would be useful if someone posts some guidelines on what a good bokeh actually is. I have a feeling that different peopleview bokeh differently.
Raid
Nice, Raid.
You put that bottle up for me, didn't you ? "Selbstgemachter" Objektiv Test :)
I need to spend a bit more time on the photos ... on first glance I find the ZK and both Nikkor bokeh's real pretty (you will say: "what a surprise" ...)
Thanks for all the work,
Roland.
Nice, Raid.
You put that bottle up for me, didn't you ? "Selbstgemachter" Objektiv Test :)
I need to spend a bit more time on the photos ... on first glance I find the ZK and both Nikkor bokeh's real pretty (you will say: "what a surprise" ...)
Thanks for all the work,
Roland.
Yes, Roland, the bottle was for you. A German student brought it to me as a gift. His father (before he died) used to make homemade fruit alcoholic drinks.
I am glad that the bokeh tests went well. I learned a lot about the ten lenses tested. After a long break, I may do a test for 35mm lenses.
Raid
Some forty years before I came across the word "bokeh", we'd speak of out of focus backgrounds in a descriptive way: "smooth", "velvet", etc. The ideal was no jaggies which jumped out and poked you in the eye. That makes sense in a general way, because the whole purpose of throwing a background out of focus is to keep it from becoming a distraction. The red kaffiyeh photo is an example, though it doesn't have any bright spots which might have been offensive.
Does the German student's father now make ambrosia?
Some forty years before I came across the word "bokeh", we'd speak of out of focus backgrounds in a descriptive way: "smooth", "velvet", etc. The ideal was no jaggies which jumped out and poked you in the eye. That makes sense in a general way, because the whole purpose of throwing a background out of focus is to keep it from becoming a distraction. The red kaffiyeh photo is an example, though it doesn't have any bright spots which might have been offensive.
Does the German student's father now make ambrosia?
I also don't like "Jaggies". I have noticed that the very fast lenses, such as a Summilux, has such background jaggies. It seems that with fast lenses such a background is expected. In the tested lenses there are minimal jaggies.
As mentioned above, the "late" father who made the drink is dead.
Raid
Good bokeh is a deeply blurred background where the elements melt/dissolve into one another.
Bad Bokeh is distracting, with doubled lines, zig-zags and out-of-focus rings. It is most common with fast 50mm lenses and perhaps some fast wides.
I'm attaching one of my stronger examples of harsh bokeh. The first picture is from a classic Nikkon 5cm f/1.4 of the 1950s at probably about f/2. The spots of light coming through the trees are distinct, hard-edged circles, many with brighter edges than centers, so that there's a ring effect. Many of the out-of-focus branches are doubled, with jagged lines, especially to the lower right and lower left. The overall effect is a very "busy" background with a lot of movement and tension for a photo that ought to be tranquil. My understanding is that the harsh backgrounds were an intentional tradeoff. The lens designers when for the sharpest, fastest lens the Sonnar formula could handle. It's important to note that bokeh is very different depending on f/stop and the distance where the lens is focused.
For comparison, I've attached a photo of another daughter taken with a longer lens ... 105 or 135 Nikkor ... also close to wide open, so that you can see an example of a smooth background. Most longer lenses have "good" bokeh.
I took the first picture last year. Walking in the forest near our home, my youngest daughter took the map from me and decided she would take over being the guide. The second picture was this past winter in front of our house.
Vince,
There is a difference between a pleasant and unpleasant background effect, and I noted that the fast lenses have unpleasant bokeh to my eyes.The Summilux is a lens that I don't own, but I don't like its bokeh as seen in many posted images online. Others insist that this lens has great bokeh.
I have the Nikkor 50/2and 135/3.5, and I know that the 135mm lens has very nice bokeh. I still need to use the 50/2 lens wide open.
Raid
"Good bokeh is a deeply blurred background where the elements melt/dissolve into one another. It's most common with fast 50mm lenses and perhaps some fast wides."
Raid,
Everything I've ever heard about the 50/2 Nikkor is that it has wonderful rendering of backgrounds. I know in my SLR lenses, the 50/2 is a very smooth, very pleasing lens (that I never use because I like having f/1.4!).
>>"Good bokeh is a deeply blurred background where the elements melt/dissolve into one another. It's most common with fast 50mm lenses and perhaps some fast wides.<<
I was again typing faster than I was thinking. I edited my earlier post. Actually "good" bokeh is more common with longer lenses, while "harsh" bokeh can show up on fast 50s.
I've also seen some examples of a Leitz fast 50 (f/2?) from the 1930s that had strange swirls in the background.
Vince:
Yes, this is more similar to what I have noted. It seems that when designing a fast sharp lens there is a price to pay; harsh bokeh.
I am quite pleased with the test results of the ten lenses. Do you have observations on the results? You are one of the few who have commented in depth.
Raid
Interestingly, I just tried a "blind" test and somewhat favored the Zeiss and Nikkor 85mm. But all the examples look good. The reasons I favor the Zeiss and Nikkor were the more deeply blurred backgrounds. The Steinheil seemed the "least good" because of more defined circles in the background highlights, a characteristic shared by the Elmars and, to a lesser extent, the Canons. But this is being real nitpicky. All the lenses look really nice. Probably I'm just so used to the look of the Nikkor 85mm (and the Zeiss is very, very close ... I actually picked it as my favorite) that my eyes were drawn to it. In practical use, I've found the Nikkor 85mm is capapble of doubled lines in the out-of-focus area, but they're so soft that it's not as distracting as with a 50mm lens.
There's a big difference between f/2 on the Zeiss and Nikkor, and F/2.8 or f/4 on some of the other other lenses. The f/2.8 and f/4 lenses simply can't smooth out the background as much.
Here are more examples from my worst case "gas lamp test" with illuminated leaves in the background. It illustrates what Vince wrote above, how some OOF rings and their patterns can be disturbing (at least to me).
From left to right: Canon 85/2, Nikkor 85/2 and Jupiter-9 (this is a different lens, a J9 from 71, but it should behave similarly to the ZK Raid tested). For me the J9 is the prettiest, but then the Nikkor is much sharper. The (for me) right compromise between sharpness and bokeh is why I like the Nikkor so much.
Cheers,
Roland.
Roland,
I have seen these bokeh shots before, and they seem to show harsh bokeh.
I believe that the only differences, if at all present, between the different medium tele lenses tested appear at the Bokeh shots.
The lenses are all excellent in overall performance, and each has a faithful following group which supports it.
It is possible that the Nikkors have a creamier bokeh than Canon lenses.
But does this optical difference account for the large difference in market value?
Maybe the collecting factor plays a big role here. Nikkors bring in more money than vintage Canon lenses of the same focal length.
Raid
P.S.
I have sent all four lenses to their respective owners. This is the "official" ending to the tests for me, but discussions are always welcome
Hi Raid,
I agree with you. Thanks for doing the tests !
Roland.
>>Maybe the collecting factor plays a big role here. Nikkors bring in more money than vintage Canon lenses of the same focal length.<<
For 1950s gear, there's no strong relationship between quality and price. Canon prices are generally reasonable because a lot of lenses and bodies were made, and they tend to be considered "second tier" compared to Leitz. The Nikon equipment prices can get crazy for mint-ish lenses, especially in the Leica mount. Not a lot of Nikkor lenses were made ... often 10,000 or fewer of each design, and most were not made in Leica mount. Quite a lot of them were used by professional photographers and so didn't survive.
>>Maybe the collecting factor plays a big role here. Nikkors bring in more money than vintage Canon lenses of the same focal length.<<
For 1950s gear, there's no strong relationship between quality and price. Canon prices are generally reasonable because a lot of lenses and bodies were made, and they tend to be considered "second tier" compared to Leitz. The Nikon equipment prices can get crazy for mint-ish lenses, especially in the Leica mount. Not a lot of Nikkor lenses were made ... often 10,000 or fewer of each design, and most were not made in Leica mount. Quite a lot of them were used by professional photographers and so didn't survive.
... and that is what I called the collecting factor. The fewer lenses were made, the more expensive they become later on.
Raid
>>The fewer lenses were made, the more expensive they become later on.<<
The "collecting factor" isn't just a case of small production numbers. There also has to be a demand that exceeds the supply. Collecting often doesn't make a lot fo sense. Sometimes "demand" becomes so intense that the prices get silly. Think of "beany baby" stuffed toys or Internet stocks in January 2000. A few years ago, Nikon RF bodies seemed to be selling for about twice their current values. More cameras are coming on the market via estate sales, but not as many younger photographers are interested in building a Nikon RF collection.
You have a point there, Vince.
What I called "collecting factor" confounds two things.
Raid
Just wondered, Raid, because in classical mythology ambrosia is the food and drink of the gods; and, going by received wisdom, a dead man would be well placed to make the stuff for them.
Nikkors bring in more money than vintage Canon lenses of the same focal length.
I was thinking about that last night again. Kind of surprised that it ends up as a Canon vs Nikkor
debate, while the more epensive Summicron was in the test as well. How did the cron compare
to the Canon. Raid, will you sell the cron ?
I don't think chrome 85 Nikkors are really collectors lenses. I fully agree, that all lenses tested
are very capable shooters. But there is an additional few percent that I like in the Nikkor and
that I would reinvest my money in (I am talking about the chrome one, the
black one is a different story). Plus, when I bought it I was debating
between the Nikkor and the Summicron, having tried the Canon. The Summicron was too expensive
for what I wanted. Raid, what is you conclusion wrt Summicron vs the other lenses, in particular the
Canon 1.8 that you tried more ?
Roland.
That's true. Chrome Nikkor 85s aren't considered too collectible. They're not cheap but are a reasonable value.
I was thinking about that last night again. Kind of surprised that it ends up as a Canon vs Nikkor
debate, while the more epensive Summicron was in the test as well. How did the cron compare
to the Canon. Raid, will you sell the cron ?
I don't think chrome 85 Nikkors are really collectors lenses. I fully agree, that all lenses tested
are very capable shooters. But there is an additional few percent that I like in the Nikkor and
that I would reinvest my money in (I am talking about the chrome one, the
black one is a different story). Plus, when I bought it I was debating
between the Nikkor and the Summicron, having tried the Canon. The Summicron was too expensive
for what I wanted. Raid, what is you conclusion wrt Summicron vs the other lenses, in particular the
Canon 1.8 that you tried more ?
Roland.
Roland,
The Summicron does not return inferior images. It is a classic design and my example is the version with built-in hood. It is one of the most beautifully designed lenses that I have ever seen. Most likely, it is not sharp corner to corner @ f 2.0, but I see it very special for portraits and creamy results even with landscapes.
The Canon 85mm/1.8 is very sharp and it also has a nice overall quality. It is rarer than my 85mm/1.9 and it commandsa higher price. If I didnot have a 85mm/1.9, I would be tempted to find such a lens. The 1.8 version is shorter and very easy to focus with. The 1/9 version is longer and heavier(it seems) and the focusing takes longer.
The chrome Nikkor 85mm/2.0 is a classic, and I was tempted to buy such a lens. However, I already own several quite capable lenses in that focal length.
I prefer the Summicron overall.
Raid
Here is the first replicate for the bokeh test.
I hope that you can benefit from the photos.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=628757
If you want to see the second replicate, just let me know.
I thought that having all ten images on one page makes comparisons easier for you.
Raid
Did the bokeh test images go away? :confused:
Alan: I may have finally removed those images. I thought that this thread is dead. I will try to upload them again.
Raid
Raid, no worries if it's a hassle, I was just doing a little research on Canon's 85's and came across this old thread.
Alan: From my recollection I can state that Canon lenses perform very well when compared to Nikkor or Summicron vintage lenses, but some Canon lenses have a less pleasing Bokeh wide open than others. The Canon 85mm lenses are undervalued and make a great buy in general. By the way, the [black] Canon 85mm/1.8 is priced much higher than the 85mm/1.9 or 85mm/2.0. I have the Canon 85mm/1.9, and I like it very much.
Raid
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.