flashback to 50mm lens comparisons

[januaryman]

Ha! I was just reflecting on this myself a short while ago. I used to use a gauze square, and open it up, using whatever number of layers I thought was called for... Or a skylight filter smeared with vaseline. Remember that? Or when I was out and about with absolutely nothing, I'd breathe on the lens to fog it up, hold the viewfinder of my SLR up to my eye and shoot when it looked right to me, as the fog dissipated to the proper amount.

Times have changed.

Maybe I need to try that again. Haven't picked up an SLR in ages.

Thanks Raid, and a BIG thanks to your daughters.

These days people seem most concerned with sharpness and bokeh. There used to be an interest in so called diffusion filters or soft focus filters such as the Zeiss Softars for Hasselblad lenses. Spiratone made a pretty decent low price alternative. They had a random pattern pressed into the glass. Other brands used concentric circles. They were also available in different strengths. Some photographers used the material of womens' nylon stockings (usually black) stretched across the front of the lens. You could modify the effect by burning holes of various sizes in the center, or putting the material over the front of the hood rather than the lens itself. Have you considered doing some shots to see how these look?

 

[raid]

Thanks Raid, and a BIG thanks to your daughters.

These days people seem most concerned with sharpness and bokeh. There used to be an interest in so called diffusion filters or soft focus filters such as the Zeiss Softars for Hasselblad lenses. Spiratone made a pretty decent low price alternative. They had a random pattern pressed into the glass. Other brands used concentric circles. They were also available in different strengths. Some photographers used the material of womens' nylon stockings (usually black) stretched across the front of the lens. You could modify the effect by burning holes of various sizes in the center, or putting the material over the front of the hood rather than the lens itself. Have you considered doing some shots to see how these look?

Al,
I actually have used in the past both see-through and black stockings as filters with portraits of adults, and I own a Softar for my Rolleiflex TLR. No clue how this looks on childrens' photos. It seems that these days people start out with sharp images and then use PS to soften when needed.

 

[rover]

You fall within the 35%-40% of RFF members who found such threads useless, so you are not alone in it. On the other hand, 60%-65% found it to be useful. This is more than enough.

1% or 99%, if you want to do any comparison please do Raid. You are right, some folks don't find value in them, but that is fine, it is just a post in a large forum which they have every right to ignore. Don't let someone else's opposite opinion influence you. They are just as wrong about their opinions as you and I are about ours.

 

[raid]

Raid -- Thanks for re-posting these images. You can clearly see differences among the lenses here, and your comparison is carefully done under controlled conditions (same lighting, subject, use of tripod, same aperture, etc.). I find these comparisons useful, even if others do not, so count me among the 65%.

BTW, you referred to these photos as a "comparison." Others used the term "test" but you did not. It's unfortunate, and a little rude, for people to disparage this lens comparison because it did not meet their definition (whatever that is) of a lens "test."

My two cents.

Steve,
I noted that some people take it personally for whatever reason. If someone owns a Canon 50/1.4 and another owns a Canon 50/1.5, then there will be someone who will complain if one lens appears somehow as rendering a nicer looking image here. I would just sit back and either ignore the thread or try to inspect the images.

Thanks.

 

[januaryman]

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE CANON 50/1.4? YOU WANNA STEP OUTSIDE, BUDDY????

😀

(Originally I'm from New York. This is a typical response from the 1960s)

Steve,
I noted that some people take it personally for whatever reason. If someone owns a Canon 50/1.4 and another owns a Canon 50/1.5, then there will be someone who will complain if one lens appears somehow as rendering a nicer looking image here. I would just sit back and either ignore the thread or try to inspect the images.

Thanks.

 

[raid]

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE CANON 50/1.4? YOU WANNA STEP OUTSIDE, BUDDY????

😀

(Originally I'm from New York. This is a typical response from the 1960s)

Jim,
I went and bought a Canon 50/1.4 after doing the lens comparisons. Now, I also want the 50/1.5. There is no need [for the time being!] to step outside! 😀
I may have to see a side by side comparison of the Canon 50/1.5 with the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm 1.5 to see if thee two lenses differ a lot or not.

 

[Goldorak]

Looks like I stepped into a country club.

I have a fundamental question for you, guys of the club: Is one allowed to express an honest opinion in here?

Another fundamental question: How can you really make up an idea from these rather poor scans, tiny jpegs/Quality 8 shot in mixed lighting? I even question the use of a heavy tripod since all the pictures are tilted from left to right to a different degree.

Yes, I understand it is not a test. And I understand Raid has a big heart as some of you suggest, but the fact is that this Post was meant for new members and I simply expressed my opinion, as a new member.

Raid, I encourage you to post more summitar shots. JJKapsberger and you seem to love that lens. You seem to have many things in common. Make me fall in love with that lens! Yu have more?

 

[rogue_designer]

L
I have a fundamental question for you, guys of the club: Is one allowed to express an honest opinion in here?

Another fundamental question: How can you really make up an idea from these rather poor scans, tiny jpegs/Quality 8 shot in mixed lighting? I even question the use of a heavy tripod since all the pictures are tilted from left to right to a different degree.

Yes of course. Especially if one is reasonably polite when doing so.

As to your second point, Raids comparisons are very good at showing the overall character of a series of lenses, and taken in that context they are typically fairly accurate. But they are not meant to be a definitive measure of a lenses capabilities.

That is to say, they are enough to say, I like a glowy, portrait lens with interesting bokeh... okey dokey, not a summicron then... but maybe a old uncoated sonnar.. etc.

 

[Al Kaplan]

If anybody is planning on using something over the lens to soften the image remember that any kind of diffuser over the taking lens causes the high lights to spread into the shadows. When diffusing from a negative you're spreading the shadows into the brighter areas of the photo. The two effects don't look the same!

As for P-shop, you probably can come close to duplicating "the look", but first you have to know what "the look" looks like.

 

[Bingley]

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE CANON 50/1.4? YOU WANNA STEP OUTSIDE, BUDDY????

😀

(Originally I'm from New York. This is a typical response from the 1960s)

Jim's just upset that he hasn't been able to find a Canon 50/1.5 to buy. Lens envy, I think. 😀😀

 

[januaryman]

rogue_designer - eloquently put answer to someone with attitude who accuses others of being ... what's the word? "Elitist." People in glass houses and all that, yes?

Steve - stop waving that damn Canon 50/1.5 in front of me just to taunt me!

Al - You sent be a message, but your private email is kicking back - to others, forgive the direct reply to Al, please. I sent you an email saying this:
"Holy Crap! Believe it or not, my wife was a big fan of his. I even bought her one of his photo books as a present!

I still recall his using Minolta cameras. At least I THINK I remember that. I loved the dreamy look of the photos, but never really tried to emulate them. Personally, thinking back, it probably would be categorized as child porn in today's world. Maybe even back then, I guess. I have not heard that name in decades! What a rush.

Cheers

Jim"

Maybe I'm not meant to HAVE a Canon 50/1.5... there's always that possibility.

 

[raid]

only for country club member goldorak

only for country club member goldorak

Raid, I encourage you to post more summitar shots.

Summitar at 4.0:http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288243

By the way, the full lens comparison may have included over 100 images in B&W and color. Roland [Ferider] would then post process images on his website for finer details.

 

[raid]

By Les at Nelsonfoto:

 

[Doug]

Raid I agree the Canon 1.8 is outstanding, but I like the Nikkor shot too. With "real tests" of detailed flat subjects like the proverbial brick wall I'm always wary of real-world effects like field curvature blurring the corners, while in the real world the corners just come to focus at a slightly different distance. So I like to see "average" type results like this with a group of lenses.

 

[Hiyawaan]

Thank for the test, comparison, pictures, eh whatever they are.

 

[raid]

Thank for the test, comparison, pictures, eh whatever they are.

It gets awkward after a while, doesn't it.
I type the word "test" and then immediately I remind myself "NO! This is forbidden. Use politically correct terms."

Still, the "forbidden tests" are interesting to quite a few people. They may never change buying preferences, but they were not designed for such a goal anyways.

Let me tell you how I got reminded of this earlier lens comparison.
I got back a roll of film with the Summitar, and I did not like the results. I then recalled that I had tried out the Summitar only in a lens comparison [not test!], and I looked up the old thread. It is quite useful to have access to hundreds of images that were taken under controlled conditions. The test images was sharp, so I knew that my Summitar is OK.

End of story.