Comparing 35mm Lenses: Would you be interested?

Raid-
That sounds like a good scene to work with. There have been some posts lately that involve OOF areas in busy backgrounds, such as through foliage. Could you maybe get a background like that in one corner of the frame and something more simple in another? I realize this is asking a lot, but studying bokeh has become interesting to many of us.
Some of the lenses here have gotten reputations for great bokeh and others awful. A side by side comparison under the same circumstances could solidify or debunk these comments.
 
Bryce,

I will try to find such a set-up tomorrow. Then I will complete the roll in the Bessa R2C with Conatx mount lenses and also start two rolls taken with the Leica M3.

Raid
 
Dear Magus,
As an educator, I always try to learn somethng new, and I said what I said from that perspective. As for the word bias, it can mean preference.

I am sure that you know what you are talking about and that you will share how your eyes see certain characteristics that others may not identify.
There is nothing wrong about teaching. I do this most days of every week.
Thanks.

Raid
 
Hello Magus,

Thanks for the detailed posting above.

By the way, ALL test images are posted on smugmug.com where Roland can add his circles of focus areas. I just added the PN images from the original CD to allow me to seperately post images on Leica lenses and CV lenses and Canon lenses. The way I would go about making specific comparisons is to download a few images side by side and then to compare. The overall size of the test groupmay be too large for many people to take on for analysis, but if broken down to a few lenses at a time, it is not bad at all.

What you said was:

"For me the most important thing is the way a lens balances the following:

(i) how it renders texture and especially the texture of strong light,

(ii) which traits of the lenses render apparent sharpness in what way
(resolution vs. contrast vs. micro-contrast),

(iii) how shadow detail is handled


(v) how edges and corners are rendered and

(vi) how mid-tones are rendered."


Roland now has started a related thread on the analysis of the images:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=552148#post552148

There, Roland points out that his three major points for the analysis areas follows for the close-up portions of the images:

(i) the candle flames on the lower right to look at flare in more detail
(blue circles). In particular: how well are the shapes of the candle
flames resolved

(ii) the writing on the DVD box on the table (green circles). Note that this is
slightly off the focus point (the matchstick on the horse), so lack of
readability of the writing doesn't necessarily imply that the lens is not
sharp, but tells you more how thick the focal plane is.


(iii) an area in the glass doors of the curio in the background, where
light sources are reflected (red circle above).



I have to admit that I also follow my personal feelings in deciding which lens image has a better look to my eyes. Personal preferences make us choose different lenses, and this results in groups of photographers preferring one lens over another.



Cheers,

Raid
 
Last edited:
Magus,

Isn't the Elmar even worse here? I found the Summaron 3.5 and the Elmar the two lenses with worst unusual flare.

The Summaron 3.5 is my "responsibility", and I will get it cleaned up very soon.

Raid
 
WOW! My eyes hurt!

Now, the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not shine as a star anymore, does it. The newer lenses seem to have better coating that allows them to resist the intense glare from the bare bulb.

Thanks for this image portion in particular.


Raid
 
And one more, the fast lenses wide open:

152187983-O.jpg


Roland.
 
raid said:
WOW! My eyes hurt!

Now, the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not shine as a star anymore, does it. The newer lenses seem to have better coating that allows them to resist the intense glare from the bare bulb.

Thanks for this image portion in particular.


Raid
Click to expand...

Correct, Raid. Interesting for me is that there is no significant difference
between SC and MC Nokton (nothing that couldn't be attributed to photoshop ...).

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Correct, Raid. Interesting for me is that there is no significant difference
between SC and MC Nokton (nothing that couldn't be attributed to photoshop ...).

Roland.
Click to expand...

Roland:
I have also noted the negligible difference [or no difference] between the MC and the SC Noktons. This is very interesting since the SC is favored by some for B&W photography. The question is whether a bare light bulb is similar in effect to a direct sunlight exposure. I can see that in a drak room setting [like a bar or restaurant] at night, the effect may be similar to having a few light sources present. It is also good to see the lower priced Summicron-C 40mm/2 do so well. Of course, the Rokkor does similarly well, but NOT clearly better as it is being reported widely on the net. Is this another myth being addressed here?

Raid
 
Roland, I think there is a difference between the 35/1.4 asph and the sc nokton and that the light bulb picture reflects it. The bulb socket is darker in the 35/1.4 asph crop and lighter in the 40/1.4 sc crop. The 40/1.4 mc socket looks as dark as the 35/1.4 asph socket to me.

I don't own the 40/1.4 mc, but here is a picture I used to try to tell the difference between the 35 and the 40 -

Looking at the tassels beneath the horn in the window in the cropped black and white version, you see the flare in the Nokton sc shot (on the right), a look that you might prefer for some images. In the color crops the flare is more in the blue channel than in red or green and the look is not very attractive.

If the flare for the sc lens is always in the blue channel it would be minimized in a scene shot under tungsten/candlelight. From the appearance of the light bulb sockets in Raid's test, I would guess the Nokton mc would look different from the sc, and more like the 35/1.4 asph in strongly backlit daylight conditions like these.

Fred B.
 

Attachments

  • _EPS0905a.jpg
    _EPS0905a.jpg
    76.5 KB · Views: 0
  • slux35 l nokt40 r bw.jpg
    slux35 l nokt40 r bw.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 0
  • slux left.jpg
    slux left.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 0
Kudos for all the work you did testing these! Guess everyone has an opinion on these, here's mine, which will likely irritate some but is my honest opinion:

1. Newer lenses have better coatings and protection against flare. Use a lens hood with older lenses when you can.
2. The price/performace ratio of Leica lenses is a sick joke, as always.
3. Format size has far more of an impact on overall image quality than marginal variances among lens brand samples, which have to be enlarged 5000X to be noticed. The superior quality of a $75 MF 2.8/80 MC Zeiss Jena Biogon II or III in Pentacon 6 mount is obvious on a 6X6 negative scan or print when compared to any 35mm lens ever made. But the lenses tested here? Differences are rather subtle unless you (literally) put them under a microscope. The type of film you choose to use has greater impact on image quality than the impact any two lenses in the same approximate class. You get more bang for the "literal" buck by springing for the extra 2 bucks and get a 3-pack of Kodak UC professional (as one example) than to spend a thousand on what is alleged to be a "legendary" lens.
4. None of the subtle variances in any of these lenses would in any way "make or break" a picture if taken of the same subject.
5. When shooting close-ups of 120 Watt lightbulbs at wide apertures, the Canon 35mm should probably be avoided...
6... Unless, of course, you happen to like a little flare on objects like flames and lights which can make an image more interesting, give it a fun aesthetic, and character when such luminous objects are background incidentals in the scene.

Love reading these though - always a fun read. Thank you for this thread and all the work you did!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom