NickTrop said:
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 quality difference 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 lightbulbs at wide apertures, the Canon 35mm should not be your first lens choice. 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.
Love reading these though - always a fun read. Thank you for this thread and all the work you did!
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Some lenses flare more, some less. What might appear to be an inferior performance "under the microscope" can have a pleasing rendition overall, and not every lens is well suited to shooting into the light, but deliver a nice effect if the "standard" rule of avoiding bare lighting in the frame is followed. The differences are real IMHO, and are not dependent on the film. Some are simply better than others in some ways.
Raid's test was very well conducted. It demonstrates a variety of naturally occurring elements that rarely all are present at once. It allows people who have a habit of shooting scenes that include light sources to educate themselves on the various options, while still showing comparative performance in other areas. And by "performance," I don't solely mean "which is best." I mean, how a lens draws a scene, and how that varies by aperture. Some accept nothing less than perfect sharpness, while others are more forgiving, but prefer less flare or more even exposure corner to corner wide open. Soft wide open, or as sharp as can be, it's personal preference and tool-for-the-job. It's not a zero-sum game, so there can be more than one winner. But that is not the same as saying they are all the same, or that the differences are not significant in some way.
Sure, it could be tough to say two shots were taken with different lenses if you didn't know, but that's kind of the point of this - to show the real differences and show how close some of them really are. I'm not so inclined to say Leitz isn't worth the money, more that other brands are definitely worth the money. Certainly the world is full of things that are expensive just because of where they are made and by whom, not necessarily because they are inherently better by that much. For example, if you want a Porsche 911, it will cost you more than other cars with similar performance, simply because that's how much they cost. It's not because someone at Porsche is arrogant, it's because they can only afford to make so many, and they charge a price that gets them all sold. The fact that the demand exceeds supply is not a reason to criticize Porsche. And neither is the fact that other companies can make cars that perform better for less money. Porsche is under no obligation to satisfy everyone at their own expense, anymore than Leitz is.
Excellent job Raid, and thank you. I particularly like the way you are not trying to prove one thing or another with this work, it lends credence and validity to the images. The time you have put into this project, from soliciting lenses to setting up and shooting all the lenses and cameras, including processing and returning the pieces, is impressive. Thank you, too, Roland, for organizing the results as you have. It's tough no matter how you approach something like this, with the number of images and the limited amount of space we all have for viewing on monitors. I imagine it would be no easier with a hundred or more 8x10's in a pile on a table or on a wall
🙂
