View Full Version : My latest comparison of lenses
I received today in the mail two G1/G2 Zeiss lenses that have been converted to M mount by a company in Japan. The 45mm/2.0 and the 28mm/2.8 look different from my G1/G2 lenses since the outer shell is not a Contax Zeiss lens shell. The optics are the same.
The first thing that I did was to figure out the lens hood size for the lenses. Both take the 46mm accessories, which may not be the most popular. At least forme,among my several dozen lens hoods, none was in 46mm size. I found a 46mm-52mm adapter,which got me started on the road to put a lens hood on each lens.
[edit: I will this evening post pics of the lenses and their matched competitor lenses].
While I wished I had the latest ZM lenses to use for a comparison with these two lenses, I will instead just use the converted lenses and also shoot side by side with a Summicron-C 40mm/2 and a Summicron rigid 50mm/2 for the 45mm/2 lens, plus I will use a Rokkor-M 28mm/2.8 and a Kobalux 28mm/3.5 to see how images from these two lenses look different from the Biogon 28mm/2.8 G-M lens.
I have the 45mm/2 and the 28mm/2.8 in G1/G2 mount too. Optically, these lenses will be identical to the converted G-M lenses, except maybe for a change in the minimum aperture for one lens.
The lenses arrived in a parcel in which a wooden case with "straw" housed the two lenses. Ken Rockwell sent me the lenses after he completed his testing of them. Thanks to Dirk [JapanExposures] for lending us the lenses.
Ken has already posted his review online on his website, so I will not even try to do any "testing" like he has done. In his review, he praised the optics but he did not find the converted lenses as well made as Leica made lenses.
Tomorrow will be my first day for outdoor photos. I will use the lenses as some of you would do. As usual, your input is very important to steer me in the right directions.
you are freinds with kenny? i would have never guessed
you are freinds with kenny? i would have never guessed
Erik,
I don't know Ken (Rockwell) nor have I exchanged emails with him.
I was simply informed by Dirk that I would get the loaner lenses after Ken completed his lens tests.
The two lenses arrived in black. Their shape is similar to the shape of a collapsible lens, such as the Elmar-M. Here are some side by side photos of the lenses.
The 45mm 2.0: The chrome lens is the regular G2 lens, whereas the black lens is the converted lens.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/16.jpg
A view from the top of these two 45mm lenses.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/15.jpg
A view from the front of the 45mm 2.0 lenses:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/19-1.jpg
The converted 28mm lens. Note the f 16 min aperture.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/12.jpg
The pair of lenses.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/4.jpg
The 28mm lenses:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/8.jpg
The lenses feel much lighter than a Summicron 50mm/2. The aperture ring sits in the middle of the lens, and thin fingers are needed to easily rotate the aperture ring. The lenses look smaller in size than their corresponding G1/G2 lenses, which is a plus.
Al Kaplan
03-06-2009, 16:30
Cool! Wasp waist optics for Leiaphiles on a diet.
Hi Al,
The shape is not bad. I dislike the shape of the rigid Heliar, but these two lenses look good to my eyes.
I will tomorrow try to enjoy these lenses on a M6 and M3.
The real advantage is having them in Leica mount [M] and not the G1/G2 mount. Of course, some may prefer using the AF G1 or G2 over the M6 or M3. Focusing should be more precise with the M mount lenses. I like to be able to choose my focus points without having to worry where the G1 focuses.
Another advantage is not to worry about battery need.
digitalintrigue
03-06-2009, 16:47
These are great optics. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the results of the 45 Planar.
I have narrowd down my choices to the following match-up lenses for these two G1/G2 lenses. All lenses are proven sharp.
Canon 50mm/1.4 and Summicron-C 40mm/2 for the Zeiss 45mm/2. Most likely, the 45mm lens will be the winner here. Still, I would like to see if everyday photos reveal the finer differences or not. The 50/1.4 and the 40/2 are first class optics, so the challenge is there.
For the Biogon match-up I provide the vintage Rokkor-M 28mm/2.8 and the Kobalux 28mm/3.5. Both lenses are sharp,but the Zeiss G-M Biogon is of a modern make,and most likely it will have the edge here. We'll see.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/2x.jpg
Good morning people.
The sun is shining beautifully here in Pensacola, and I will be off to the beaches with the family today. I will have controlled photos the coming days where I use a tripod and I will use several lenses for comparison. Today will be a free lance shoot out with the two lenses. I will use Fuji Reala 100.
cool! thank you, Raid! can't wait to see them. (Dirk is great, isn't he?)
Dirk seems to be a friendly person for offering me to use the two lenses.
These are great optics. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the results of the 45 Planar.
I don't know which frames are visible in the M3 and the M6 when I use these two adapted lenses. Does anyone here know? To be on the safe side, I am using an external finder for the 28mm lens. What frame does the 45mm lens show?
i know people often use the 35 for 40mm lenses but i think the 45 would be better (if loose) with the 50mm. absolutely no idea which frame lines it brings up, though.
eta: i think possibly most of the available VF on the M3.
digitalintrigue
03-07-2009, 06:07
Can you mount the lens and check which frame shows? :)
The reason I asked the question is that in the M3 there are no frames shown with the 45mm lens. The entire VF is closer to a 40mm view. That should work. I will make sure that I leave some room outside the frame. The 28mm lens brings up the 90mm frame in the M6.
digitalintrigue
03-07-2009, 06:18
Which frame does the 45 show on the M6?
The 28 appears to use a 28/90 LTM adapter.
Which frame does the 45 show on the M6?
The 28 appears to use a 28/90 LTM adapter.
The M6 seems to bring up the 40mm frames. I don't have any camera or external VF for the 40mm-45mm frames, so I am guessing. The entire VF shows about 50mm, doesn't it? I am going by that.
digitalintrigue
03-07-2009, 06:38
OK I'm confused. There are no 40mm frames on an M6. These are the possibilities:
28/90
35/135
50/75
OK I'm confused. There are no 40mm frames on an M6. These are the possibilities:
28/90
35/135
50/75
You have a point here.
Must be 50/75. I goofed. The wider angle view is of course outside the narrow angle view. Silly me. Since the entire view is about 50mm, the inner frame may be the 75mm frame.
Is this reasonable?
digitalintrigue
03-07-2009, 07:21
Yes, it seems reasonable that they would use a 50/75 LTM adapter to bring up the 50mm frames with the 45/2.
so why not use the 50 frames with both cams to keep consistent -- but be aware that you'll get a little more with each.
I used the entire VF for the 45mm lens on the M3. There is a need to have a 45mm VF here. Does anyone make an external 45mm VF?
I just got back from doing my first lens field test. The focusing was more awkward than on most other RF lens I own.You have to use your finger(s) carefully to rotate the focus ring without changing the aperture ring. This would be very difficult to do when wearing gloves in cold weather. Of course, the expectations are high that the resulting images will look very nice with these two lenses.
This is how the two lenses look on the M3 and the M8. Th Biogon sports a Contax lens hood while the Planar sports a Nikon lens hood. I use one of my worst looking camera bags for my Leica lenses. Does this make any sense?!
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/10b.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/1b.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/5b.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/4b.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/9b.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/6b.jpg
My feeling is that this set-up is most likely going to be targeted by collectors of unique lenses more than photographers who want the G-M lenses for the sake of photography. It feels good to own lenses that few people own and use. Such lenses may not attain the status of "rare" since they were not produced by the original manufacturer. They are similar to what Brian puts together. Maybe they become collectible in 40 years and maybe not. I just use what Brian kindly sends my way.
Side note: My skin is not pink [as shown in the pics taken with a digital camera]. :-)
Side note: My skin is not pink [as shown in the pics taken with a digital camera]. :-)
I can confirm! ;) (But actually, it's the flash not the sensor that turns your skin pink.)
Hi, Raid!
Great to see that you got this fantastic opportunity. Wow!
I'm looking forward to seeing the results...
Dirk seems to be a friendly person for offering me to use the two lenses.
I can tell from both his name and his nature he must be Dutch :D
Well, maybe he's Flemish, but those buys just live a life in denial about being Dutch anyway:D:D:p
I can confirm! ;) (But actually, it's the flash not the sensor that turns your skin pink.)
Hi, Raid!
Great to see that you got this fantastic opportunity. Wow!
I'm looking forward to seeing the results...
Hello Kent,
Good to see you here again.
The flash is the reason why I appear pinkl skinned!
I am glad that I am given this opportunity.
Today, I shot one roll with the 45mm lens, except for two frames with the 28mm Biogon. The aperture ring has a faint white line by which you set the aperture. In one of the lenses, that white line is nearly gone already. There is a need for longer lasting marking for the aperture setting. I am not being picky, but I want to provide useful information.
I can tell from both his name and his nature he must be Dutch :D
Well, maybe he's Flemish, but those buys just live a life in denial about being Dutch anyway:D:D:p
Yes, Dirk is either a German or a Dutch name. [I think]
JapanExposures
03-08-2009, 16:56
I used the entire VF for the 45mm lens on the M3. There is a need to have a 45mm VF here. Does anyone make an external 45mm VF?
The actual focal length (which is measured for each lens and stated in the test certificate [not included in your demo pack]) is slightly more than 45mm, usually around 46-47mm (your is 46.2mm). If you think you need an external finder, feel free, but you have seen my comparison of the G with the ZM and the Hexanon, and the Hexanon is definitely longer than 50mm and I doubt you'd want an external finder for 2-3mm difference.
http://www.japanexposures.com/lenscomparison/index.html
Thank you for writing down your experiences publicly.
I disagree in the collector's notion though. These lenses are made for users and to "resurrect" the G lenses to enjoy a new lease of life.
Hi Dirk,
I used the VF of the M3 for the 45mm lens without an external VF but I used an external VF for the 28mm lens. I usually do not comment much beyond showing results. The people here at RFF will be themselves be able to decide. There are about 40% of the RFF members who do not approve of such comparisons but the remaining 60% do.
Ken Rockwell already did his formal testing of these lenses. I will make comnparisons and observations.
What I meant by collectors targeting such lenses is the fact that these lenses are quite unique and circulation wise there will be fewer lenses than the regular G1/G2 lenses or any of the 28mm-50mm Leica M lenses.
Now if I could only keep one of these lenses .... :angel::):bang::D:cool::rolleyes:
Focusing is a snap with either lens on the M3 and the M6. I am now better used to the lenses and changing the aperture has become easier for me.
I now have 2.5 rolls completed of hand held photography. Next I will use a tripod for some standard lens comparisons.
thank you, Raid.
i'm part of the percentage that very much appreciates the tests you do. very much appreciated, truly (even if you are secretly pink :p )
Now that my secret is out, I better do a good job on the lens try out.
Thanks.
I will post some results today.
What I noticed this morning is the discrepancy in metering between the two lenses. The aperture dial in each lens rotates without any clicks, so you need to set the white line in front of the chosen aperture marks. The ring rotates from right of 2.0 to left of 16.0 on the 45mm lens. I was not sure where exactly was "2.8".
Since the M6 and the Bessa T have been nearly identical in metering, I was thrown off by seeing the T showing f 11 @ 250 as the "right" exposure while the M6 showed me f 11 @ 500 as the right exposure. At first, I attributed this difference to the fact that the T had the 28mm lens while the M6 had the 45mm lens. Even then, it should/could have been the other way around since the 28mm coverage is wider, and it could be that the meter in the T would pick up more light in the edges, but what I saw in exposures was the opposite.
An hour later, while at a coffee shop, I sat beside a wall that was evenly lit from the window. After a few sips of coffee and eating a bagel with sun dried tomato spread, I cleaned my hands and I opened the camera bag up to check the meters in the T and the M6. In order to get at the little problem, I mounted both lenses sequentially on the Bessa T and I set in both cases the aperture white mark to the "2" of 2.8 on the aperture scale. I placed the lens very close to the wall so that an evenly lit part of the wall was covered by the lenses. The meter showed different results. A "2.8" on one lens was not exactly "2.8" on the other lens.
It could be that when using automatic exposure, you don't have to worry about getting 2.4 or 2.8 or 3.2 since the exposure will be "correct" with aperture priority. Did Ken use aperture priority or manual exposure?
While taking photos this morning, for the two cameras to agree on metering, one lens had to be set at the right of 2.8 and one lens was set on the "8" of 2.8.
I don't know whether Dirk can give us some clarifications on this minor issue for manual exposure camera users who may want to use transparency film with suchlenses. With such type of film, small differences in exposure can make a difference between "perfect" and "slightly imperfect" exposures. I used print film, so I doubt it that we will see any difference in exposure between the two camera.
I can see that having such lenses is very useful for travel. The lenses are relatively small and light, and they are optically superb based on many reports.
I tried out the two lenses to see how each felt whe hand holding the camera for snapshots.
1. Zeiss Planar 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-23-23rff.jpg
2. Zeiss Biogon 28mm 2.8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-13-12RFF.jpg
3. Zeiss 45mm 3.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-25-25rff.jpg
4. Zeiss 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-03-34rff.jpg
5. 30% crop for 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-02-35rff.jpg
6. Zeiss 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-07-30rff.jpg
7. 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-16-21rff.jpg
8. Planar 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-17-20rff.jpg
9. 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-21-16rff.jpg
10. Planar 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-26-11rff-1.jpg
11. 45mm 2.0
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-28-9rff.jpg
12. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-31-6rff-1.jpg
13. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-33-4rff.jpg
14. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-36-1rff-1.jpg
15. Planar 45mm :
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031450-R1-37-0rff.jpg
16. 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-00-0rff.jpg
17. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-20-20rff.jpg
18. Planar 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-21-21rff.jpg
19. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-22-22rff.jpg
20. 45mm
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031451-R1-25-25rff-1.jpg
Here start the image staken with the Biogon 28mm lens.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-05-20rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-04-21rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-01-24rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-07-18rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-06-19rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-05-20rff-1.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-04-21rff-1.jpg
Thanks Raid.
The images look very good from what I can see.
Man, I really want one of that 45mm...
These are snapshots and no more. I used PS.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-11-14rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-10-15rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-09-16rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-08-17rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-12-13rff-1.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-13-12RFF-2.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-21-4rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-22-3rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-23-2rff.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/031456-R1-24-1rff.jpg
This is it for today.
While using a color film is good to show Zeiss glass image colors, I may use B&W film for controlled lens comparisons tomorrow. What do you think?
Thanks Raid.
The images look very good from what I can see.
Man, I really want one of that 45mm...
The 45mm lens is awesome on either a 35mm M camera or the M8 where it would be more a short tele lens. The 28mm Biogon would be close to a 35mm lens on the M8 while being a wider lens on film cameras.
J J Kapsberger
03-11-2009, 06:25
What do you think?
Honestly? These images are rather too poor -- in terms of exposure, choice of subject, realization of scanning and post-processing -- to provide anything meaningful about these lenses. Highlights are washed out in several of them; shadows are blocked up in others.
Anyone who'd evaluate a lens based on these shots would be satisfied even with a 43mm-86mm Nikkor and drugstore-processed prints. I'm afraid that's what these shots look like.
Honestly? These images are rather too poor -- in terms of exposure, choice of subject, realization of scanning and post-processing -- to provide anything meaningful about these lenses. Highlights are washed out in several of them; shadows are blocked up in others.
Anyone who'd evaluate a lens based on these shots would be satisfied even with a 43mm-86mm Nikkor and drugstore-processed prints. I'm afraid that's what these shots look like.
Honesty is welcome. I get your point. On the other hand, these are snapshots with the lenses, and I have stated so. The lens comparison is not yet done. I will do it today. I just wanted to see what the feel was when using these two lenses. I commented about it in the earlier part of this thread. Thanks.
The posted images were taken in direct sunlight at the water. This is what some people may experience when taking photos. The elements were not controlled.
I will in the next round of lens try-outs keep larger image files for all lenses. Maybe this will be better for inspection of images.
I just finished a run of shots with:
1.Planar 45mm 2.0 G/M
2. Canon 50mm 1.4
3. Canon 50mm 1.5
4. Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
The other run was :
1. Biogon 28mm 2.8 G/M
2. Rokkor-M 28mm 2.8
3. Kobalux 28mm 3.5
I used Kodak C-41 film. I stabilized the camera on a heavy Gitzo tripod, and I used a cable release cord.
I hope to have soon results posted.
digitalintrigue
03-11-2009, 10:22
Raid, are you going to do controlled testing for bokeh and rendering at different apertures and distance? By controlled, I mean whereby all the factors are identical except for the lens? (Same view, tripod, film, focus distance, aperture, exposure, etc.)
Raid, are you going to do controlled testing for bokeh and rendering at different apertures and distance? By controlled, I mean whereby all the factors are identical except for the lens? (Same view, tripod, film, focus distance, aperture, exposure, etc.)
Yes I have done such a set-up, and now I need to figure out how/where to upload them in large file sizes. Few free website let you upload files exceeding size 1MB.
I will start with photobucket.com until someone advises me of somewhere better.
Is this file too large or is it OK to see ny differences between the lenses and the apetures?
Planar 45mm 2.0 @ 16:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat16.jpg
Planar 45mm 2.0 @ 8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat8.jpg
Planar 45mm 2.0 @ 4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat4.jpg
Planar 45mm 2.0 @ 2.8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat28.jpg
Planar 45mm 2.0 @ 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat20.jpg
I chose the lit Christmas tree for seeing some bokeh at each chosen aperture. The paper on the left shows you which aperture and which lens was chosen. The focus point is the left edge of the first video tape on the left. I have two black lines drawn vertically there. Any focus errors are due to eyesight and not the lenses. I lef some room on the right for window to show for possible flare.
Is this lens comparison "crappy"? I don't think so.
Here are the images from the Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM. I got it a few months ago from KEH. I have used it only with a couple of rolls so far, but I am confident that it is a sharp lens.
Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 16:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at16.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at8.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at4.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 2.8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at28.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at20.jpg
I decided not to move the tripod a lot whenever th focal length changed a little. I just want to illustrate with other lenses how the Planar images look like. I know that the wider lenses will be more challenge by the window light, but there was no direct light entering the room. so I saw it as OK to allow more coverage.
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0 at 16:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at16.jpg
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0 at 8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at8.jpg
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0 at 4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at4.jpg
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0 at 2.8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at28.jpg
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0 at 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at20.jpg
The last part was taking photos with the Canon 50mm 1.5 (Sonnar) LTM.
Canon 50mm 1.5 at 16:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at16.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.5 at 8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at8.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.5 at 4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at4.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.5 at 2.8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at28.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.5 at 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at20.jpg
I will post tomorrow the scans for the Biogon 28mm 2.8and the to other 28mm lenses.
This thread would have gotten many replies if it had been : "Canon 50mm 1.4 vs. Canon 50mm 1.5".
Have you noticed the different bokeh for the four lenses? It is intersting to see the bokeh change with different aperture settings. Some Christmas tree lights appear as circular and in other images they appear as oval. The Canon 50/1.5 shows lower sharpness at 2.0 than the other three lenses. Was it the focusing or was it the lens?
Here are some crops at 2.0:
Planar 45mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat20-1.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm14at20-1.jpg
Summicron-C 40mm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/SummicronC40mm20at20-1.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.5:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Canon50mm15at20-1.jpg
Here are the comparison results for the 28mm lenses.
1. Kobalux 28mm at 16:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Kobalux28mmat16.jpg
2. Kobalux 28mm at 8:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Kobalux28mmat8.jpg
3. Kobalux 28mm at 4:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Kobalux28mmat4.jpg
4. Kobalux 28mm at 3.5:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Kobalux28mmat35.jpg
Biogon 28mm at 16
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat16-1.jpg
Biogon 28mm at 8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat8-1.jpg
Biogon 28mm at 4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat4-1.jpg
Biogon 28mm at 2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Planar45mmat28-1.jpg
Rokkor 28mm at 16
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Rokkor40mmat16.jpg
Rokkor 28mm at 8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Rokkor40mmat8.jpg
Rokkor 28mm at 4
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Rokkor40mmat4.jpg
Rokkor 28mm at 2.8
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Zeiss%20G-M%20Lenses/Rokkor40mmat28.jpg
Ron (Netherlands)
03-12-2009, 14:24
Did you leave auto ISO on? It seems so (at least in some comparisons) since on f 16 there is more grain in the photo's, which seems to degrease by opening the diapraghm....
This must have been the lamest thread of any time.
Anyways, this is it. The lens comparison is over.
What has it shown?
All lenses compared are good. The Zeiss lenses look extra sharp.
Bokeh is excellent for all lenses.
I miss "your" input.
Did you leave auto ISO on? It seems so since on f 16 there is a lot of grain in the photo's, which degreases by opening the diapraghm....
Hi Ron,
I used a Bessa T without any auto settings.
In each image, I carefully measured the exposure. Did I make errors? My honest reply is that I can make errors as I am human. What sometimes happened was that the meter would read "between green and red" on the upper side while it would read "between green and red" on the lower side. I would then try to adjust the shutter speed until the meter read green. This was not always possible for a given aperture and speed.
DougFord
03-12-2009, 14:55
I view your ‘lens comparisons’ and do find them informative.
The Planar 45mm is a very impressive lens. (I personally own the summi-40)
The old Rokkor 28mm really holds up well against the new Zeiss. (I’m partial to the Rokkor, I own one, CLA’d by John Van Stelten) :)
Since the window light was the only source of illumination in the lens comparison, it can happen that a cloud passes in front of the sun and suddenly the exposure changes.
While the new Zeiss lenses seem to be quite impressive, the vintage lenses chosen by me are also good.
The Rokkor 28mm is as good as the Leica 28mm of its time period. The Summicron-C 40mm lens is very sharp and equal if not better than more costly Leica lenses.
It has been clarified to me that the lens optics stayed 100% the same as the ones in the Contax G1/G2 lenses. The core held the optics in place.
The 28mm lenses have a reduced bokeh OOF effect than the 40mm-50mm lenses. Take a look at aperture setting 2.8 for all lenses. The OOF of the Christmas tree lights is pronounced with the 40mm-50mm lenses whereas it is minimal with the 28mm lenses.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.