Non-formal Testing of 85mm~105mm Lenses - Page 4

raid · 08-07-2006

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."

VinceC · 08-07-2006

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.

raid · 08-07-2006

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

VinceC · 08-07-2006

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.

ferider · 08-07-2006

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.

raid · 08-07-2006

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

ferider · 08-07-2006

Hi Raid,

I agree with you. Thanks for doing the tests !

Roland.

VinceC · 08-07-2006

>>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.

raid · 08-07-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceC

>>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

VinceC · 08-07-2006

>>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.

raid · 08-07-2006

You have a point there, Vince.
What I called "collecting factor" confounds two things.

Raid

payasam · 08-08-2006

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.

ferider · 08-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid amin

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.

VinceC · 08-08-2006

That's true. Chrome Nikkor 85s aren't considered too collectible. They're not cheap but are a reasonable value.

raid · 08-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferider

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

adep · 10-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

raid · 10-23-2006

Alan: I may have finally removed those images. I thought that this thread is dead. I will try to upload them again.

Raid

adep · 10-23-2006

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.

raid · 10-24-2006

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