Comparing 35mm Lenses: Would you be interested?

Nick,

A while back I agreed to buy a Canon 35/2.8 from member of this board. He got my money in hand and took a look at the lens in question and made me a "counter" offer... ;) I have a Canon 35/1.8 as a result for much less than it's usual price; OTOH, I use it pretty regularly so I don't feel especialy guilty. I have given out similar things myself (a 90/6.8 WA Raptar for $50 lately in thanksgiving to Brian Sweeney or the time recently when I gave a 135/4.7 Ektar in Graphmatic shutter away for free).

We really do take care of our own around here.

It would be well worth your time to remember that when you interact around here. It's not even "don't mess with me, I won't mess with you" vibe. It's the "just be nice and you may well ge what you don't expect" instead. I've seen it around here so many times that if I take it for granted that the people here will do "The Right Thing".

This is way OT here, but it needed to be said again. These are really actually Good people here.

William
 
raid said:
Marc: I got similar results with the test of tele lenses and also with the 50mm lenses, but here, the results are closer.

Raid
Click to expand...

I think this has to do with

- wide angles being less sensitive to "character" (like the Sonnar portrait etc), in particular when
shot at f2.8 and up. The DOF is simply much deeper than with 50s and teles.
- the lenses included in my summaries of your results, Raid (f2.8 and faster) are relatively
modern (except maybe for the Canon 35/1.8). Many of the 50s included in your test, at
least design-wise were older (like the Sonnar variantes, etc), if I remember.

I think it is safe to say that the more modern a lens is, the less "character" it has, i.e. the less distinguishable
from others it is. This is particularly true for fast wide angles, that are younger historically than fast 50s.

Best,

Roland.

PS: BTW, where is the Jupiter ? I remember there was one in the lens picture ...
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
I think this has to do with

- wide angles being less sensitive to "character" (like the Sonnar portrait etc), in particular when
shot at f2.8 and up. The DOF is simply much deeper than with 50s and teles.
- the lenses included in my summaries of your results, Raid (f2.8 and faster) are relatively
modern (except maybe for the Canon 35/1.8). Many of the 50s included in your test, at
least design-wise were older (like the Sonnar variantes, etc), if I remember.

I think it is safe to say that the more modern a lens is, the less "character" it has, i.e. the less distinguishable
from others it is. This is particularly true for fast wide angles, that are younger historically than fast 50s.

Best,

Roland.

PS: BTW, where is the Jupiter ? I remember there was one in the lens picture ...
Click to expand...

Roland,

First, I had the Jupiter 12 first in line with the Bessa T, and then realized that it did not match, so I placed the J-12 aside... and forgot about it. :bang:

I tested it differently yesterday, but not with a flare test but a portrait.

The other lens left out is the Nikkor 35mm/2.5 in LTM. I used it yesterday.

What you mentioned about the seasoned 50mm lenses is correct. In this batch of 35mm-40mm lenses, many are like new in the box.

Cheers,

Raid
 
Last edited:
Good morning Raid, I am wondering how the portrait test is progressing. I will take a peek at Roland's Smug Mug page to see if there's anything new.

Thanks to you both for doing this fine work. I, for one, appreciate the "this is what you're likely to get using this lens" testing approach you are using. As an amateur and photography hobbyist, seeing end results is really enough. (When I finish raising my family I will hopefully have time to learn about the more technical aspects of lenses and light).
 
Good Morning, Roger

I was very busy at work yesterday, but for today and I have already typed up my "work plan" for the second portrait test (the first is still in the roll with Dana as model). Hopefully, I will have some results soon. I shot all lenses at 2.0 or their largest aperture exceeding 2.0. This allowed me to shoot all LTL/M nount lenses on one roll. Now, I have the J-12 and the 35mm Nikkor included. I also tested the five non Leica mount lenses.


I will do a second round of portrait shoots in the front porch for outdoor light quality. Then, another [hopefully last] round will be used up with a targeted bokeh test of all lenses.


Raising my little daughters is for me top priority , so I also delay things once in a while.

Raid
 
Last edited:
I have completed two rolls of portrait lens testing today. I still have to show results based on five lenses in Contax mount. The roll used for testing these lenses is still unfinished but it has three tests on it. I hope to get back the scans of the portrait test shoots tomorrow. Then I will upload the images to Roland's smugmug website for further analysis.

This time I made sure to include the only FSU 35mm lens we have; the J-12. I also included the Nikkor 35mm/2.5 in LTM which erroneously was left out in the flare test as there is also a Contax mount Nikkor 35mm lens.

Raid
 
Last edited:
Canon35mm2.jpg


I have uploaded 23 images (plus one replicate for a total of 24) to Roland's smugmug site. I used the M3 with Fuji NPS160 (@120) at window light. I used a Pentax digital spotmeter for the exposure choice. The M3 was stabilized on a Gitzo tripod. Roland will refine the results when he has time coming weekend.

This photo was taken with a Canon lens. I am surprised by the vignetting on the left.

Raid
 
Last edited:
Magus,

I am sure that Steve did not mean anything bad with his question. All of us want to learn about new ways of looking at images and at lens behavior. In fact, didn't I ask you a smilar question recently and you were kind enough to explain to us in detail how you view things? I went back to the newly uploaded images and I took another look at them. The darkening in the corners appears more prominently in the vintage lenses compared to newly designed lenses. I wonder whether this was something inherent to the design of lenses at those times.


Raid
 
I think the sample of the Canon 35mm f/2 you used in your test must be out of adjustment or damaged internally.

I have two of them and they are FAR better than the results I see in your images. Mine are consistently very sharp, have very little propensity to flare and produce extremely pleasing images.

In my opinion, one of the best 35mm lenses.
 
Edward Felcher said:
I think the sample of the Canon 35mm f/2 you used in your test must be out of adjustment or damaged internally.

I have two of them and they are FAR better than the results I see in your images. Mine are consistently very sharp, have very little propensity to flare and produce extremely pleasing images.

In my opinion, one of the best 35mm lenses.
Click to expand...

Hi Edward,

I also read many great things about the Canon 35/2; it is called the Japanese Planar. I don't know why the results are looking inferior. Could it be that you use a lens hood with the lens and I did not?

Raid
 
raid said:
Hi Edward,

I also read many great things about the Canon 35/2; it is called the Japanese Planar. I don't know why the results are looking inferior. Could it be that you use a lens hood with the lens and I did not?

Raid
Click to expand...

Something wrong with that lens, I agree with Edward. Focus is off in your
photos ... I used to have it, too and it did behave very similar to my 35/2 v3.

Nothing you can do about it though, Raid.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Something wrong with that lens, I agree with Edward. Focus is off in your
photos ... I used to have it, too and it did behave very similar to my 35/2 v3.

Nothing you can do about it though, Raid.

Roland.
Click to expand...


Roland: I will give it a few extra frames in the bokeh test. Maybe I can correct my "errors" there.

Do you mean that in all 35/2 Canon images the focus is off?

Raid
 
Last edited:
I really don't know about the optical designs of these two lenses. Both seem to be excellent lenses.

Raid
 
I just got a thought on why the Canon 35/2 may be off focus; could it be that the M adapter did not fully fit on that lens and there was distance left?

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