comparison of 32 'normal' lenses

[kuuan]

a comparison of 32 manual lenses with focal lenghts of 50 to 58mm ( + Pentax FA43 ltd. an autofocus f1.9/43mm lens )

camera used Sony A7
takes with ISO 100, A mode, Auto WB in RAW from wide open every full stop through f8
imported in LR5, exported as jpeg without any editing

seen are full frames and 7 different 100% crops
made a dedicated flickr stream for it, here it is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuanslenstests/collections/72157670921126335/

EDIT: someone took my test images and made comparison MUCH easier!
any part of the frame of 2 photos taken with any lens at any f stop can be compared directly: http://www.lenshunters.com/tests/a7-normal-lenses-test/
( though not all lenses are included yet some more may follow )

the lenses:

32 normal lenses compared by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

RF lenses:
Canon LTM 1.4/50mm, 1.5/50, 1.8/50 2 versions, Nikkor-S 1.4/5cm, CZJ 1.5/5cm ( prewar ), Jupiter-8M 2/50mm, Topcor-S 2/5cm

SLR lenses: ( very Pentax heavy ) made by Pentax: Takumar 2.4/58, 2/58, Macro Takumar 4/50, Auto Takumar 2/55, Super Takumar 1.8/55, Super Takumar 1.4/50 ( 2 versions ), S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 1.8/55, 1.4/50, Pentax M 1.7/50, 1.4/50, Pentax A 1.7/50, Pentax FA 43 ltd 1.9/43
Rokkors: Auto Rokkor-PF 1.8/55, MC Rokkor-PF 1.4/58, MC Rokkor-PC 1.4/50
others: Auto Yashinon DX 1.7/50, Helios 44-2 2/58, Mamiya Sekor-SX 1.8/55, Nikkor-S Auto 1.4/50, Olympus OM Zuiko 1.8/50 ( made in Japan ), CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, RE.Auto Topcor 1.8/58
( actually it is 33 lenses, including a otherwise not documented "hybrid" of early 8 element and later 7 element Super Takumar 1.4/50 )

the frame ( take of Canon LTM 1.4/50 @f2 )


CanLTM14.50.20-00970 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

samples of crops, near center 100% crop ( SMC Takumar 1.4/50 @f2 )


SMC1.4.50.20-00807 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

right side 'bokeh' 100% crop ( MC Rokkor-PF 1.4/58 @f1.4 )


Rok14.58.14-00927 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

I hope someone will find this useful,
cheers, andreas

PS: A while ago I had made a similar test but on APS-C sensor of NEX5n: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections/72157632455712332/

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Very useful, at least to me. Thanks for all the effort. With any luck, no one is going to say, "wish you had included......"

 

[Larry Cloetta]

It's also disconcerting how many of these lenses I already own.

 

[kuuan]

glad that is is useful to you Larry.
more than "I wished this or that lens was included" I fear comments about how badly the test was performed and above all being hit for owning that many normal lenses. - Please don't feel disconcerted but very, very happy that you own many of them!

 

[jmilkins]

excellent effort thanks Andreas! This will take me much more than a cup of tea to go through!

 

[Larry H-L]

I went through some of the detail shots, picking ones that looked good to my eye, and more often than not, those frames came from: The Nikkor RF 50mm f1.4, The Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8, and the Olympus 50mm f1.8.

Interesting.

Thanks for the effort!

 

[michaelwj]

excellent effort thanks Andreas! This will take me much more than a cup of tea to go through!

I'm sure there are some lenses there you don't have yet John...

 

[michaelwj]

glad that is is useful to you Larry.
more than "I wished this or that lens was included" I fear comments about how badly the test was performed and above all being hit for owning that many normal lenses. - Please don't feel disconcerted but very, very happy that you own many of them!

These comparisons are always useful, thanks for the effort.

But... I can't believe you didn't include ...

EDIT: I forgot to say, you have 32 normal lenses! Holy cow!

 

[lynnb]

Thanks Andreas, that's quite a bit of work, and I found it interesting. I have thought of doing the same but with a head and shoulders shot of a (very patient) model, as I often use 50mm lenses for portraits. Would you be interested in doing that also? My 50mm lenses are not nearly as numerous as yours, but there is not a lot of overlap.

I haven't attempted it yet as I'd have to use film.

 

[kuuan]

thank you guys for your comments, happy to know that you find the test useful.

tea is good for you John!

Larry 'looking good to one's eye' imo here is more important than 'objective' criteria but everyone might choose different lenses..

Michael of some of the lenses I have more than one copy, some are with friends and others I forgot to include, make it 40+

Lynn me too I like using normal lenses for portraits. My set up was supposed to be telling for portraiture too, focus distance was just over 3m resp. 10 feet but the carved head is a bit small. If time permits I shall do another comparison with fewer normal lenses that hopefully emulates portraiture better. Using a living model and film is very admirable but I am afraid that for me again it would be neither ( I can only do that while I am in Austria and have access to the bulk of my lenses and that isn't for long )

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Huge amount of work!

Some of them looks OK, some are...
At the end, I kept same conclusion which I have made after playing with film era lenses on DLSRs. Film lenses on digital sensors are not worth it, IMO.

 

[kuuan]

somebody just made it MUCH easier to compare the images, see: http://www.lenshunters.com/tests/a7-normal-lenses-test/

( I shall edit my original post and add this link there too )

 

[rfaspen]

I always appreciate these tests. Each one by itself may not be "the final word", but the aggregate of several of these is enough of these to form some solid opinions about various lenses.

Plus -- I just think how much fun is was to pull out all those "goodies" and handle/use them. I say that sincerely, without sarcasm. I like excuses, er I mean good reasons, to use my gear.

Now, I own only about 25% of the lenses in this test. Am I safe, or should I be concerned?

Thanks again Andreas.

 

[kuuan]

Huge amount of work!

Some of them looks OK, some are...
At the end, I kept same conclusion which I have made after playing with film era lenses on DLSRs. Film lenses on digital sensors are not worth it, IMO.

thank you Ko.Fe.
darn, so all my photography is not worth it, sigh

 

[Shac]

Thanks Andreas - a lot of work before and after shooting

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

somebody just made it MUCH easier to compare the images, see: http://www.lenshunters.com/tests/a7-normal-lenses-test/

This is super, and so are the test shots. Interesting to see the differences.

Many thanks!

 

[giganova]

I thought "normal" lenses are 40mm? *just kidding'*

 

[goamules]

Thanks for the test. Of the ones I looked at, I didn't see any that wouldn't take nice pictures.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

somebody just made it MUCH easier to compare the images, see: http://www.lenshunters.com/tests/a7-normal-lenses-test/

( I shall edit my original post and add this link there too )

Maybe they will add some more later, but as of now, though they have picked most of the"usual suspects", I was sad to see that they did not include the Auto Yashinon 50/1.7 which is, as I think you have shown, one of the all time great sleeper lenses. Pretty sharp from wide open, and with good color and decent bokeh (subjectively speaking). Perhaps nicer than many of the lenses that get more press.
Build quality is quite nice as well, IMO.

 

[kuuan]

I always appreciate these tests. Each one by itself may not be "the final word", but the aggregate of several of these is enough of these to form some solid opinions about various lenses.

Plus -- I just think how much fun is was to pull out all those "goodies" and handle/use them. I say that sincerely, without sarcasm. I like excuses, er I mean good reasons, to use my gear.

Now, I own only about 25% of the lenses in this test. Am I safe, or should I be concerned?

Thanks again Andreas.

right, I believe such tests do show something about the lenses. Handling, how I like the lens when using, not only the result, is big part of the fascination. It's a harmless hobby and relatively affordable, why should anyone not simply feel happy about it?