Comparing 35mm Lenses: Would you be interested?

fgb2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fred,

I did not move the position of the tripod when switching from a 35mm lens to a 40mm lens and back, As you can see in the full images, a 35mm lens covers more areathan a 40mm lens,and the effect of the light bulb will be slightly less with 35mm lenses than 40mm lenses. This may explain why the image looks darker with 35mm lenses because a 40mm lens got a larger proportion of the frame exposed to the bare light bulb.

There is a reason why I asked above whether sunlight effects a lens differently than the lights in my set-up.


Raid
 
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. 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 the overall impact of the image.
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.
Click to expand...

Nick,

I agree with you on the first four points. As for my longtime hobby of shooting bare light bulbs with Canon lenses, I cannot agree ....:D

Raid
 
raid said:
Nick,

I agree with you on the first four points. As for my longtime hobby of shooting bare light bulbs with Canon lenses, I cannot agree ....:D

Raid
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Thought I was the only one with this fetish! We need a "bare light bulb shot with Canon glass porn" thread!
 
Magus,

It is OK to allow differences in opinions, and I can see where you are coming from. In fact, I was discussing the cost differences of lenses with my wife, and she understood the finer points to the degree at which she reminded me why sometimes a certain brand of make-up costs four times as much as a comparable one. Then she told, "No, it is not four times as good, but when you want the finer points in a product you have to pay for them."

If I accept my wife's arguement, I can accept yours. [smile]

Raid
 
otoh, it's not just the optics you're going for. durability, reliability, and ergonomics are also factors.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
40oz said:
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.
Click to expand...


I always try to illustrate what I get in an "average" photo that you and I and others will one day take. Someone advised me before I did the testing that flare is a major factor to consider with the 35mm lenses included in the testing and that sharpness was less of an issue. This is why I did the bare bulb flare test.

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.
I spent three days planning for this test,not counting the daydreaming portions of other days in which I was visualizing the experiment. I cannot have errors, or else it will cost me more time and money to reshoot and develop and scan. Each lens has literally one "shot" for a situation, and that's why I set up the flare test to also capture other factors of possible interest.



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.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken. I do not get the same enjoyment from a lower cost lens with excellent optical qualities than from a lens that also shows high quality craftmanship and has a "history" to tell about. For example, I don't really need a Zeiss 5cm/2 in LTM as I have better 50mm lenses, but knowing that I may have a genuine [rare] Zeiss lens made in a batch of 200 lenses for Sweden in return fo rmetal ore is very satisfying and exiting to a degree. I look at the lens and I think who has used it before me. It has a history. Also, a lens like the first version 35mm Summicron is special to me. It was the first. It is special. It has eight elements ... :bang:

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.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I have been consistent in all my lens testing overviews and I have been "attacked" on PN for it. There are people who agressively have asked "where is your report? I don't see any given'". This person did not recognize that I was rfespecting the views of others and that I understand that there are personal preferences which differ from person to person. The collective "wisdom" of people commenting here is more important to me. I carefully read what you and others are saying here. It lets me learn.

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 :)
Click to expand...

I am most exited about the group project part. So many nice people volunteered time and money to entrust me with their lenses. I saw Roland's use of PS with smugmug to arrive at close-ups, and I asked him to help me out.
Thanks Roland. :)



Raid
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Magus: Send me your secret plan on how to demolish any CV performance. Maybe I could use it in the next par of the lens test. [I am"testing" you]


Raid
 
NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...

I must say that NickTrop made a good point, and I agree with him, especially on the second and third comments. Thanks to Raid's work, we can actually see that there is not much difference between all those excellent 35mm lenses and that we can make a good picture or a bad one with any of them. Finally, I also agree with Nick on the ridiculous quality/price ratio of Leitz lenses ... though I wouldn't "sneeze" at a Summilux 35/1.4 :)
 
Marc: If the images had been scanned in higher resolution or viewed under a microscope, there would be additional differences, but I wonder how important these minute differences are to a photographer.

Raid
 
raid said:
Marc: If the images had been scanned in higher resolution or viewed under a microscope, there would be additional differences, but I wonder how important these minute differences are to a photographer.

Raid
Click to expand...

Raid, I'm sure of that (and, if I understood him correctly, NickTrop said nothing but that): under a microscope there might be significant differences; but as you suggest it, those differences are not (or should not be) of importance for a photographer. Again, what strikes me is the high quality of most of the lenses you've tested ... and that's good news for us! :)
 
Marc: I got similar results with the test of tele lenses and also with the 50mm lenses, but here, the results are closer.

Raid
 
Wow. After I semi-dissed the Leica-heads in my first post, I changed in to my stuntman "burn suit" in preparation to be flamed, and got civil and reasonable responses? What a cool-n-open minded group of guys and gals that post here.

And Marc-A, if I was walking down sunny Main Street on a spring day carrying my Yashica Lynx 14e, and a random passerby said, "Excuse me sir, you seem to have an interest in photography. Would you like this Summilux 35/1.4 I happen to keep in my jacket pocket?" I would hypocritically take back everything I said in my post, accept the kind passerby's offer with a gracious "wadda guy", and be bidding on Zorki 3's to slap that bebe on faster than you can say "magnifient microcontrast".
 
Last edited:
Raid's test is going swimmingly. :) My 'cron 35 can almost keep up with the young whippersnappers, and its middle-of-the-road resistance to high contrast jibes with my experience. Sometimes, a heaping pile of flare makes the picture, and those multi-coated wonders will not deliver. Variety is good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom