A VERY nonscientific lens comparison

M

Maximilian

Established
Local time
8:36 PM
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
95
I currently have three 35mm lenses at home so I decided to compare them. Unfortunately, I did a sloppy job so I didn't get much out of it. All are hand held so not exactly the same, and I believe I may have gotten a bit of motion blur on the one to the right. All are however shot within a minute of each other and developed and scanned using the same settings.

I'll probably be selling one of these lenses, not based on these results, but for other reasons, so I'm not sure if I'll do another comparison or not. And just so it's clear, I only did this for myself to see the difference of rendering, not to prove anything to anyone (plus what you are seeing here are only low res images that makes it even harder to see much of a difference). But, since I did this, I thought I'd might as well share. Just for fun, I won't tell you the lenses just yet. I will however say that two are modern and one is somewhat modern. All are shot at 2.8, but one of them has the ability to be opened further. Would be fun to hear which is your favourite!

UPDATE! The lenses used are just a few posts down.

The subject is the cinematographer I have worked with since I graduated film school in 2004. He has shot basically everything I have ever done. He is now beginning to retire, so for the first time in my career I am now looking for a new cinematographer to work with. It is sad, but at the same time it is exciting. We will however continue to be good friends and watch movies together.

three lenses by m h, on Flickr
 
I could read the hair on top of the head clearly on two of them. No favorite. I'm not in favor of comparing 35 mm lens on square crops. To me as for viewer, I need to see entire frame to get the lens character. So I'll leave it for gearheads here...
 
I agree, but since I didn't take them at the same angle, the corners had different things in them and I think it was easier to see it like this. All these lenses are good at corner sharpness though.

The image on the right is not as sharp as the others, but I know that this lens actually is, so that's why I believe I have a bit of motion blur on that one.

The only thing I actually got out of it, was that the lens to the left and the one in the center look more similar to each other than I would have guessed, since they are the most different.
 
Ok, since it's not much of a test and this is not in the original post, I'll post the lenses here.

Left: Leica 35mm 2.0 Summicron-M ASPH (the latest version)
Center: Not just a lens but a whole camera! - Contax T3
Right: Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 C Biogon ZM

I love the Leica, but I don't think it's worth it when I have the other two, I'll be selling it soon.
 
My eyes seem to be going back to the middle one, but maybe that's because there's detail on his right cheek (and it seems a bit warmer than the first shot). The light must have changed in the third shot because it's brighter in the background on the left (his right) and on his brighter cheek. That is affecting my judgment of the image somewhat. The main light coming from slightly behind and off to one side of your subject isn't really the best lighting scenario - I would have turned him a bit so that at least the light was hitting a little more towards the front of his face rather than the back and side (but that's just me nitpicking). Or you move to your left so that he's forced to turn his head more towards the light.

I think I would have chosen flatter, more even lighting for this test (though it is, as you say, unscientific). But a good exercise nonetheless!
 
Thanks for doing this, unscientific or no. I downloaded the largest size version from your flickr account, and that didn't make snap judgments any easier. Not sure if you didn't just help drive T3 prices higher than they already are. :)
 
Hmmm. Not knowing how contrasty the scene actually was and so not knowing which oe is the most 'accurate' as far as that goes, I'd have to say I dislike the one on the right as it looks too contrasty and it doesn't look quite as sharp as the two.

I think it's possible that I prefer the one on the left.
 
Keep the one that took the left picture , it's the one which shows most clearly the shirt stripes on his right hand side shoulder , nearest his cheek . Peter
 
My favourites are the left and middle, in that order.
All three lenses have enough resolution, but the ZM 35/2,8 (right?) just doesn't handle the contrast as well. There are blown highlights and empty shadows. The other two have a better ability to hold the highlights, with a cleaner transition from highlight to shadow.
Before you revealed the lens identities I would never have guessed!
 
Photography is not a science, so a scientific comparison is not necessary. Maybe more comparisons are necessary.

However, the picture on the left is technically by far the best.

Erik.
 
The one on the right has more contrast and stronger color. But I think the contrast is too much for this shot, since some highlights are blown. The middle one has just enough contrast (the lowest of the three, I believe), but the blue colors in the shirt seem muted. And the leaf at left looks blue to me. In the leftmost photo, the leaf is green on my monitor, at least.

I dunno. I was a little drawn to the center photo for this particular shot. Want to try again with a different scene?
 
Erik van Straten said:
Photography is not a science, so a scientific comparison is not necessary. Maybe more comparisons are necessary.

However, the picture on the left is technically by far the best.

Erik.
Click to expand...

While photography is a craft, Optics is a science.

Anyways, I don't think any of the 3 lenses was designed to generate the most beautiful 900 x 900 pixel, rectangular crops. For all we know, the 3 pictures could be Photoshop variants of a single original. What I oppose is using them to draw any conclusions about the lenses that were used. Now, I do understand how people pick the best sports-car based on how it performs at 75 m/h on a US freeway, and everybody is free to do so, it's just not my thing, Erik :)

Roland.
 
In my subjective opinion, the color is better balanced in the far right photo. It also has higher apparent contrast, however, that might be due to lighting and exposure variations. Both the far left and center photos look sharper...again, possibly having to do with a variation in focus. The center photo is too warm for my tastes. The far left is a little cool.

Of course that's the way the photos look on my computer screen in the early afternoon today...using my almost 70-year old eyes.
 
Based on the detail in the shirt, I liked the left image, then the center, then the right.

I tend to prefer the higher contrast of Zeiss lenses more than the lower contrast of Leitz lenses because I usually shoot subjects in low contrast light. However, in this case, the high contrast lighting on the subject is not conducive to the Zeiss lens.
 
Well, I'm happy some people appreciated this post and at least it made for some discussion. I agree with all the critique and the limited use of the comparison, which I explained in my earlier posts, but it is what it is, so take it for what it's worth, even if not much. :eek:
 
Amazing how close they are. Not easy to discern.
Perhaps it's my monitor, or my untrained eye.
My what a jaded bunch we are.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom