Canon 85/1.5 vs. Zhong Yi Speedmaster 90/1.5

[dexdog]

I saw a thread from Sonnar Brian a few days ago about the Mitakon Speedmaster 90/1.5 lens. Brian opined that it was a pretty good lens, and a steal at $399 USD. I ordered one from B&H Photo on Sunday and got it Tuesday morning. Packaging for shipment from B&H was great, a big box with lots of bubble wrap. After playing around with the Mitakon lens a bit, I wondered how it would compare with my classic Canon 85/1.5. Peter Ks book of Canon lenses says this is a Type 4 lens produced 1957 to 1960. My lens is a beautiful example, crystal clear glass.

As with any fast lens, the first thing I wanna look at is what happens wide open and close up. Close focus on the Canon is 0.9 meters, and close focus on the Mitakon is 1.1 meters. A couple of pics, point of focus is the bird's eye. Focused using peaking on Sony a7III with Voigtlander M to E mount adapter. The Canon was used with a Leitz Wetzlar bayonet adapter.
Canon at 0.9 meters

Mitakon at 1.1 meters

 

[dexdog]

Another pair of pics, wide open and close up. Point of focus is the beak on the ceramic kiwi
Mitakon


Canon

 

[dexdog]

Another pair of pics. Point of focus is on the taller of the two crystal candlesticks in the mid-ground, distance is 1.5 meters.
Canon

Mitakon

 

[dexdog]

I have not used the Mitakon much yet, and truthfully have not used the Canon in over a year. One thing that I have noticed is that the Mitakon offers a bit more resolution/is less blurry stopped down to f2 than the Canon.
Mitakon at f2

Canon at f2

 

[dexdog]

So far, I am pretty impressed with the Mitakon. Given the currect $6k USD eBay price for the Canon, I could buy 15 of the Mitakon lenses! As you may guess, both of these lenses are chunky. Each is about 100mm long; the Canon weighs 672 grams while the Mitakon weighs 758 grams. I will have to play around with each lens some more, this is kinda fun.

 

[lukx]

Interesting, thanks. Is is possible you have mixed up the photos at some point? On the photos of the kiwi, the Canon seems to have considerably more contrast, while on the photos of the candle holders, the order is reversed. I assume the more contrasty lens is in fact the Mitakon?

Also, on the first pair of photos, the bird looks considerably closer in the shot labeled Mitakon, though its close focusing distance is 20cm longer. I am not sure if the 5mm added focal length make up for that.

 

[Coldkennels]

I was thinking the same; colour and contrast performance seems to swap around between the lenses, if this is to be believed.

Of course, there's also the chance that the auto colour balance in the Sony is playing silly buggers, but I think the chance of a mix-up is more likely.

 

[dexdog]

lukx, thanks for pointing out that I mixed the photos. I corrected the names in posts 3 and 4. I double-checked the photos, the Canon appears to have greater contrast.
"Playing silly buggers" is pretty funny!

 

[x-ray]

I don’t think it’s contrast as much as it’s exposure. There’s a big difference in the exposures of the two. The Canon either transmits more light or one of them has an aperture problem. There’s probably a third to half stop difference.

 

[dexdog]

X ray, the exposure was manually set for all pics, so I am guessing it is differences in the lenses. Another pair taken at f2.8

Canon

Mitakon

 

[dexdog]

Same lenses on a Nikon Z6
Canon Exposure manually set to get correct exposure according to camera, 1/20 second, aperture is f2.8


Mitakon Exposure manually set to get correct exposure, 1/13 second, aperture is f2.8.

I got the pics correct because you can see the Canon lens on the right side of the Mitakon pic. I think that I did not get the focus peaking optimally set on the Canon pic.

 

[x-ray]

Use your histogram to get the exposures exactly the same. Meters are too easily fooled. You really can’t judge contrast until exposures are exactly the same. This will be a good indicator of how exact the aperture is.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

On out next meet-up, you need to take these two lenses! I'll bring mine on the M9. Looking at photos from my 85/1.5 compared with the 7art 75/1.25 at the Marine Museum- that Canon really performs well, but contrast on those two lenses look close. I'll bring the 75/1.25 and 90/1.5.

 

[dexdog]

Will do, Brian. Vagaries of contrast/exposure aside, I think that the rendering of the OOF and images in general are very similar. I might even bring my Canon 100/2.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Canon is a good lens- was disparaged for years, same as the 50/0.95. The secret is out. After I bought the Canon 85/1.5 and a pair of 50/0.95's for under $1K.

 

[lukx]

I am impressed with the performance of the Canon here. One just sold on ebay for 1.700€, which is a steal these days (or the true value compared to all the inflated hype-fueled listings you see).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Canon 85mm F1.5, wide-open on the M9.



7Artisans 75mm F1.25, wide-open on the M9.





Color rendition/ Contrast, same subject, same lighting, but different days. I'll bring the Chinese Super-speeds along.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This is with the Canon 85mm F1.5, Wide-Open on the M9.



Next trip to the skating rink, will try out the Mitakon to see if it can be matched.
The Canon is big, heavy, and has a long focus throw.
But shots like this- hard to get without a big, heavy lens.

And extremely boring shot with the Mitakon on the M9, but wide-open and close-up. Did this one to get an idea of contrast when first testing the lens, no backlights.