Lens testing

[jsrockit]

"I just go out and photograph." is also testing. It takes longer, but isn't as boring.

Exactly... and believe me I notice when something is really wrong. However, I've printed as large as 24x36"... but I've never had to go that large before realizing something was wrong. However, PKR sounds like he needed razor sharpness. I just require ok sharpness.

 

[PKR]

Exactly... and believe me I notice when something is really wrong. However, I've printed as large as 24x36"... but I've never had to go that large before realizing something was wrong. However, PKR sounds like he needed razor sharpness. I just require ok sharpness.

John, I often worked with ADs who were used to looking at 8x10 Ektachromes. They would look at my portfolio and then ask about the camera format. There was often a pause after I answered. One AD friend, who I worked with over many years, had an annual report job that was all b+w executive portraits. He had seen and commissioned lots of my B+W work over the years. I used plus x and delivered both target and press ready prints. Many of these jobs were two color black and white, often with a spot varnish, meaning three color. He got 8x10 or 11x14 prints.. His preference. For this job, he wanted me to work in 2 1/4 , even though there would be little difference in the finished product, as per print size and the final printed report. I'm convinced the format change was to satisfy his client. Previous reports were shot 35mm with questionable results from uncaring photographers, or maybe technically ignorant photographers?
With digital, 12-16 mp is fine for most things. Many of my lenses won't properly resolve a larger sensor density. The new Nikons are 40+, needing new lenses. The end product drives the gear for me. I rarely need more than 16, if i do i rent a Phase One.

Most of the "New Photographers" don't print but, they need the latest 40+ MP sensor... for viewing on a monitor or, web publishing ? You have to hand it to the marketing folks.

When in the film dazze, i worked in 35 and 4x5. Nothing bigger and, nothing in between .. My rare 4x5 use was for camera movements and occasional table top still life shots.

In my assisting days, all NatGeo was 35, and my two years in the studio were all 8x10. Two very different worlds.

 

[ForestCap]

I only test old RF lenses, since it is quite easy to tell if an SLR lens or lens for mirrorless digital cameras is good or not. 99% of my lenses are ok sharp, so I just don't bother to find out which ones are ultra-sharp.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"Back alley" This is what home lens testing looks like to me. f5.6 @ 1/40th on Ilford FP4. Love the character of this '33 Elmar 3.5cm f3.5.. But then I like Dagors & Tessars & the M42 Pentax 50 1.4. Asph.....not so much. I take a chance on the odd lens and then photograph with it. I do like summicrons too...& if i had my Deardorff & Ries tripod the entire image right to the peaks would be sharp .... but at
times you can't have everything.
Bill... Thanks for bringing up this topic.
unnamed-19 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156629749@N02/

 

[jsrockit]

John, I often worked with ADs who were used to looking at 8x10 Ektachromes. They would look at my portfolio and then ask about the camera format. There was often a pause after I answered. One AD friend, who I worked with over many years, had an annual report job that was all b+w executive portraits. He had seen and commissioned lots of my B+W work over the years. I used plus x and delivered both target and press ready prints. Many of these jobs were two color black and white, often with a spot varnish, meaning three color. He got 8x10 or 11x14 prints.. His preference. For this job, he wanted me to work in 2 1/4 , even though there would be little difference in the finished product, as per print size and the final printed report. I'm convinced the format change was to satisfy his client. Previous reports were shot 35mm with questionable results from uncaring photographers, or maybe technically ignorant photographers?
With digital, 12-16 mp is fine for most things. Many of my lenses won't properly resolve a larger sensor density. The new Nikons are 40+, needing new lenses. The end product drives the gear for me. I rarely need more than 16, if i do i rent a Phase One.

Most of the "New Photographers" don't print but, they need the latest 40+ MP sensor... for viewing on a monitor or, web publishing ? You have to hand it to the marketing folks.

When in the film dazze, i worked in 35 and 4x5. Nothing bigger and, nothing in between .. My rare 4x5 use was for camera movements and occasional table top still life shots.

Thank you for the added information. I appreciate it. I have only used 4x5" a little bit in my life... it was not for me at all. I wasn't ready for it. Though I could see how it would have been great table top still life... maybe even perfect. If the streets get too ridiculous or boring, I might have to try this. But, for me, even medium format wasn't my favorite...I've always liked small cameras. These days, I'm all APSC. I'd be a bad pro. 😉

 

[PKR]

Thank you for the added information. I appreciate it. I have only used 4x5" a little bit in my life... it was not for me at all. I wasn't ready for it. Though I could see how it would have been great table top still life... maybe even perfect. If the streets get too ridiculous or boring, I might have to try this. But, for me, even medium format wasn't my favorite...I've always liked small cameras. These days, I'm all APSC. I'd be a bad pro. 😉

John; I do a lot of table top and other still life work with an old 60mm AFD Micro Nikkor. It's an amazing lens. I bought it from a friend who is a Nikon executive. It was old and rotated out of NPS stock and given to him. It's out tested all challengers. I use it in MF on film and digital bodies. It was in very clean shape when I got it, though I'll bet it was loaned out a lot. Maybe NPS got the best stuff?

I mostly favor APSC these days, especially for personal stuff. Clients don't know the difference. Those who might, want 60-100MP files. The 60 micro is a 90 on the smaller format. It's a great lens. My digital gear is all Nikon and Fuji.

Still life work with a small camera is lots of fun. My only suggestion is, a side arm for your tripod and some counterbalance weight (small photo sand bag) if you don't have them.. I use a 10lb bag on the opposing tripod leg. Maybe two if the arm is all the way out.

 

[Mcary]

Another member of the just go out and shoot society and the its sharp enough for me society. JMO but I think that going out and shooting is the best way to find what uses a lens is good for a what it might not be so good for. Example for shots that I want a low contrast/soft look to I'll use my 5cm Summitar and for one I want more contrast sharper I'll use my Nikkor 5cm.

 

[Bill Clark]

Speaking of lenses may I suggest to get your eyes checked.

The M.D. I see for my annual asks me, “did you get your eyes checked?” I did, it will be two years in November. Just starting to get cataracts, easily taken care of now. Some info to help:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cataracts/symptoms-causes/syc-20353790

Something I get checked for:

In my Moms family macular degeneration is sprinkled among some members. My mom had it. If you have it and it’s left unchecked you won’t need to care about photography lenses. At the time my Mom got diagnosed, I took my Mom to the U here in Minneapolis where they used a cold laser treatment to stop the bleeding. The damage already done was not able to be corrected.

Info on macular degeneration:

https://www.macular.org/what-macular-degeneration

Sorry, I don’t mean to hijack your thread Bill but I thought I would suggest folks have the most important lenses in the world, the ones in your eyes tested.

 

[Out to Lunch]

All considered -unless you take pictures of cars, door handles, pizzas and steaks, what is in the frame will mostly outweigh the specific qualities of the lens you have used.

 

[Roger Hicks]

LF lenses have often been tested in the past by using them for projection (in specially designed set-ups). Quick, easy and informative.

Cheers,

R.

 

[back alley]

i don't have the patience to do 'formal' testing.
i either like the lens or i don't and the older i get the more i like my gear.
i'm loving fuji lenses and am amazed at what it can do, even in my hands.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Speaking of lenses may I suggest to get your eyes checked.

The M.D. I see for my annual asks me, “did you get your eyes checked?” I did, it will be two years in November. Just starting to get cataracts, easily taken care of now. Some info to help:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cataracts/symptoms-causes/syc-20353790

Something I get checked for:

In my Moms family macular degeneration is sprinkled among some members. My mom had it. If you have it and it’s left unchecked you won’t need to care about photography lenses. At the time my Mom got diagnosed, I took my Mom to the U here in Minneapolis where they used a cold laser treatment to stop the bleeding. The damage already done was not able to be corrected.

Info on macular degeneration:

https://www.macular.org/what-macular-degeneration

Sorry, I don’t mean to hijack your thread Bill but I thought I would suggest folks have the most important lenses in the world, the ones in your eyes tested.

Thank you. That’s an important reminder for all of us. (At this end, glaucoma, blepharitis, pseudophakia and visual field defects. But, thanks to visits to one of the best eye institutes in the country which is nearby, manual focus is still a working option.) Still, I’m glad auto focus is around, and when I can’t see what I’m doing I plan to pass the results off as a unique artistic vision.

 

[robert blu]

Speaking of lenses may I suggest to get your eyes checked.
...

Since a few years my wife and I have a regular visit to check our eyes once a year. Yes German or Japanese lenses we use are important, but as you say our ones are the most important. So far only normal minor "defects"...ahh, the age...

robert

 

[Bike Tourist]

We're all looking for the perfect marriage, photographer + lens = I love you!

And this type of marriage is probably, actually achievable, although you may have to divorce a few until the right one comes along.

 

[ptpdprinter]

And this type of marriage is probably, actually achievable, although you may have to divorce a few until the right one comes along.

Let's say you own a Nikon film camera and want a 28mm focal length lens. How many different ones would you "test" before you can be sure you have found the one that is best? It seems like there could easily be dozens. And if you want to be sure, do you shift to Leica, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus... and try dozens more. And then there is lens to lens variation to consider. Or do you just punt, and say of the four I tried, I liked this one the best? Actual experiences, anyone?

 

[raid]

I have never done any scientific testing of lenses, but I have taken photos with many lenses, one after the other, and then I inspected the resulting images. It always has been about how a lens renders some scene and never about resolution or MTF curves.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I have never done any scientific testing of lenses, but I have taken photos with many lenses, one after the other, and then I inspected the resulting images. It always has been about how a lens renders some scene and never about resolution or MTF curves.

How many is many on a focal length basis? Did you buy all of them you tested and then sell the ones that didn't make the grade? I am trying to determine how people go about this as a practical matter.

 

[raid]

No, it was done via RFF discussion. I would receive by mail 20-40 lenses from RFF members, and I used the lenses and then mailed them back to their owners. Some lenses sent to me were quite valuable, such as the Nikkor 50/1.1 or the Noctilux 50/1.0 or the Canon 50/0.95. All lenses were appreciated. I did several such lens comparisons over the years. It was all done with film cameras. Roland "Ferider" would then take my results and enhance the presentation greatly with his organization of the images on his smugmug website.

For example: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41084
Raid's 35/40mm flare test: Analysis
https://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-35-40mm-Lens-Test

Example: https://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-50mm-Tests

 

[PKR]

How many is many on a focal length basis? Did you buy all of them you tested and then sell the ones that didn't make the grade? I am trying to determine how people go about this as a practical matter.

I pay more attention to the lenses (focal length,etc) I use the most.

First, you have do decide that within a set of lenses, all 28mm f2.8 AIS for example, that some will be better than others.. for whatever reason. If you don't believe there is a difference, then you're wasting your time.

Then, given that there is a difference; how important is this to you? If it's of little importance, then again, it's wasting time. If it ranges in importance from, fairly to real important, time and money might be spent accordingly.

I'll spend time testing my most used focal length prime lenses and zooms (at their most used focal lengths). Little used focal lengths don't get as much attention.

I think, many think this is complete bs, and have no interest in testing the tools they use. I have no problem with any of that. Many on here would prefer a lens that looks like new to one that is rough in appearance, but is a stellar performer. I understand that too. It comes down to how important your images are to you.

I come from a place where, some who employed me felt that working with a small, camera was a disadvantage .. And, maybe they would get more for the buck, if i used a larger format.

Today, with digital hardware, the format is less critical. But, a lenses' ability to resolve a sensor is a serious thing. I just think that, some lenses do it better than others, and i look for them. It's time well spent for me. This was the case with film and i don't think things have changed.

If it's a used lens, i buy them and sell them. I went through 8-10 looking for a 50mm enlarging lens.

 

[sunrisecody1]

Many years ago I was having lunch in the Leitz cafeteria in Wetzlar with one of the gentleman who tested lenses, both theirs and the competitions. The test lab facilities were impressive. On the wall of the cafeteria was a board of printed pictures and fellow lunchers inspected the images and expressed their opinions. I said that If this evaluation was also a test of the lenses, it was much less impressive than the lab tests.

It was then that the Leitz employee, as politely as possible, reminded me that I was an idiot. While lab tests provide information on the overall performance of a lens, more important to a maker of lenses, they show very specific optical problems to be corrected within a design. The designer needs to know the lens has a problem with spherical aberration. We photographers have to know that the lens has problems with landscapes and architecture, but has a certain charming glow when used to take pictures of lovely women.

So my lens tests now consist of taking a lot of pictures - landscapes, portraits, distant shots, medium shots close up shots, wide-open shots and stopped down shots. Of course I’m not just testing the lens. I’m testing the lens/camera/my usage along with the print making process. It wouldn’t be a very good test if I was designing lenses, but I’m taking pictures. Admittedly, in the test period I’m taking a lot of pictures that are not very inspiring and then spending a lot of time looking at pictures I wouldn’t normally print. But, it’s worthwhile. I have actually gotten to know which of my lenses work for me. A few have been banished; some have been raised to stellar status. Lens testing - incredibly boring and very worthwhile…

Your thoughts?

How about your overall visit to Wetzler? What impressed you the most and how much did you get to see? Thanks in advance for your reply.