raid
Dad Photographer
Stefcouz,
Most of my so-called "test" photos were taken with color. In few cases, I used C-41 XP2 film.
35mm lenses
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 3K
Stefcouz,
Most of my so-called "test" photos were taken with color. In few cases, I used C-41 XP2 film.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi John,
Thanks.
The older lenses can be great for portraits. Each of the tested lenses is a very good lens. The rest is personal preferences.
VinceC
Veteran
All lovely lenses (and lovely photos -- "real world" lens tests are my favorites). The planar looks very pleasant but I usually want more speed than f/3.5.
My children also are growing more impatient with Papa's lens tests. Haven't resorted to bribes yet.
My children also are growing more impatient with Papa's lens tests. Haven't resorted to bribes yet.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks, Vince.
I also prefer faster than 3.5 lenses. In certain situations, the extra stop makes a difference.
I also prefer faster than 3.5 lenses. In certain situations, the extra stop makes a difference.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
First: shouldn't this be in the optics and lens section?
Here is a little comparison I made between my three 35mm RF lenses: elmar 1936, summaron 1954, summicron 2003 (asph); just a comparison for fun (we all know the outcome of course), with quite unequal lenses, only focal length is the same.
First set of three pics are taken at f 3.5 (also the summicron). Under each pic there is a link for if you would like to have a look at the original file. Second set of three pics is at aperture f 16, the elmar at f 18.
Oh and the elmar is uncoated.
some conclusions:
- the elmar wide open is not sharp - only a bit in the center, does not render the colors naturally, no contrast. At f 16 the elmar is almost overall quite sharp, quite reasonable at least in the far edges;
- the summaron is even wide open already quite sharp, however not in the far edges of the pic, does not render the colors very naturally, not much contrast. At f 16 the summaron is overall very sharp and provides a little better color rendition but still lacks contrast;
- the summicron compared is wide open already most sharp, beautiful color rendition and very contrasty; but of course this is what you might expect from modern technology.
Elmar 1936 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/elmar%203.5.jpg
Summaron 1954 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summa 3.5.jpg
Summicron 2003 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summi 3.5.jpg
Elmar 1936 at 18: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/elmar 18.jpg
Summaron 1954 at 16: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summa 16.jpg
Summicron 2003 at 16: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summi 16.jpg
Here is a little comparison I made between my three 35mm RF lenses: elmar 1936, summaron 1954, summicron 2003 (asph); just a comparison for fun (we all know the outcome of course), with quite unequal lenses, only focal length is the same.
First set of three pics are taken at f 3.5 (also the summicron). Under each pic there is a link for if you would like to have a look at the original file. Second set of three pics is at aperture f 16, the elmar at f 18.
Oh and the elmar is uncoated.
some conclusions:
- the elmar wide open is not sharp - only a bit in the center, does not render the colors naturally, no contrast. At f 16 the elmar is almost overall quite sharp, quite reasonable at least in the far edges;
- the summaron is even wide open already quite sharp, however not in the far edges of the pic, does not render the colors very naturally, not much contrast. At f 16 the summaron is overall very sharp and provides a little better color rendition but still lacks contrast;
- the summicron compared is wide open already most sharp, beautiful color rendition and very contrasty; but of course this is what you might expect from modern technology.
Elmar 1936 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/elmar%203.5.jpg
Summaron 1954 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summa 3.5.jpg
Summicron 2003 at 3.5: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summi 3.5.jpg
Elmar 1936 at 18: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/elmar 18.jpg
Summaron 1954 at 16: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summa 16.jpg
Summicron 2003 at 16: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/images/test/summi 16.jpg
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The Summicron is sharp in both images with it. The Elmar and the Summaron lack contrast.
I think that Raid's tests were all lenses that could be used on the Nikon RF camera- so it was helpful to have in the Nikon forum.
Soomeday I'll have a Sumnmicron and Elmar in S-Mount. And then I'll post the test shots here.
On the Zeiss lenses- I suspect that a slight change to the shim would help the performance on a Nikon RF. The DOF covers the error, but the "sweet spot" is still slightly off on a Nikon. Vince has a J-12 that was specifically shimmed for the Nikon. You could see an improvement in the performance using a loupe at the film gate.
Soomeday I'll have a Sumnmicron and Elmar in S-Mount. And then I'll post the test shots here.
On the Zeiss lenses- I suspect that a slight change to the shim would help the performance on a Nikon RF. The DOF covers the error, but the "sweet spot" is still slightly off on a Nikon. Vince has a J-12 that was specifically shimmed for the Nikon. You could see an improvement in the performance using a loupe at the film gate.
Similar threads
