Lens Tests

[Ade-oh]

This is the first photography forum I've ever been a member of and one of the things that has surprised me is how often people seem to shoot 'lens tests'. I have to say that this is something I've never done. The only obviously bad lens I've ever owned was a secondhand Olympus OM Zuiko 35-105 zoom which was always soft and vignetted at the wider end, so I took it back to the shop where I bought it and got my money back. So the question is: do you shoot lens tests?

I'd also be interested to hear why.

 

[Anupam]

When I get a new RF lens, I do a ground glass focus accuracy test, but when I shoot film it is always real world shots, not test shots.

 

[charjohncarter]

I do shoot my sons wallpaper sometimes to check for edge sharpness, but I have to agree with 'sitemistic' I can never see much difference in newer lenses. When something isn't right with a photo it is usually me that caused it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, I do, but then, I'm paid to.

Increasingly, though, I focus on handling, feel, character and what it can do, rather than on test targets. As everyone else has said, you should be able to take most of this for granted.

What I want to read in a lens test is what I'd like to hear if I asked a friend, whose opinion I respected, "What's it like?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[like2fiddle]

When I buy a "new to me" RF lens, I like to see how it behaves under different conditions, so yes, I usually do a test of some sort. This usually involves trying it with and without a hood, shooting into light, different apertures, etc.

 

[mfogiel]

One of the things I've learned by now, is to make a test of accurate focusing on the body of choice - if in doubt a focus shift test across the apertures doesn't harm too. Once you know you can focus with confidence, the rest is done by shooting several rolls in "field" conditions.

 

[jolefler]

I own a J3 & a Barnack, so...

I own a J3 & a Barnack, so...

I'm testing, shimming, testing, unshimming, reshimming, testing :bang: . I put general shots on the same roll as tests, though. Some actually work out...thanks to DOF at f11-22 🙂

I've never tested my Leitz lenses, seems they shoot just fine from my general work.

Jo

 

[Graham Line]

With a new lens, I generally shoot a roll in familiar places -- where I know what to expect -- just to get an idea of the depth, edges, shadow quality and so on. But I rarely take notes and it isn't very rigorous testing.
The last time around, with a new 35, plus a 28, 40 and 50 at various times, it was very hard to tell which was which from the final set of negs -- which was good.

 

[williams473]

Nope, don't shoot official lens tests, although like everyone probably does, I carefully evaluate my first few rolls from a new camera/lens until I trust it is giving me good images.

I have to say however, I do appreciate it when people who are more technical than me post lens tests online - I usually get over-obsessed by lens sharpness, so if I can find someone who has tested a lens I use, I'll gladly take the time to read it.

 

[Matthew Allen]

It depends what you mean by lens test. With digital I fire off a few frames of whatever object I'm standing near when I get a new lens but I've never bothered with rigorous testing, especially not with film.

That said, if I were buying a lens with known sample variation issues (like a Sigma or certain Tamrons) I might be more cautious. Although with modern manufacturing it's not generally a problem, some low-end lenses have an alarming rate of centering defects.

Matthew

 

[WoolenMammoth]

most of the lenses I buy are 40 years old. Its a little foolish to not test something that old. Every lens I get I'll do a focus test just to make sure the body I have it on can actually focus it... I work in an industry however where that is totally the standard thing you do on the first day at work, so its hard to imagine not doing it with unknown equipment. I suppose it just comes down to how important the work is that you are shooting. Wether its formally understood as such or not, the first roll you put through any unknown equipment is a defacto test at the end of the day. Id rather have a crummy roll of focus charts to throw away rather than a roll I shot for a client...

 

[icebear]

??? What's a lens test 😕 - just kidding, but no I don't do shots of walls or wallpaper or newspaper stuck on the wall etc. I haven't bought anything that would require a lens test to make sure I don't have a bad one - and currently I hope I'm done...but one the other hand CV1.4/35, you never know....maybe for X-mas😎 .

 

[raid]

I have done lens testing for the fun of doing such tests with many lenses contributed by RFF members. It is especially fun and interesting when exotic lenses that also are vintage are included in such a test.

Example: Compare Nikkor 50mm/1.1 to Canon 50mm/0.95 and Leica 50mm/1.0.

This are great lenses to try out.

 

[bmattock]

I don't take anything at face value, so if I buy a lens (always used, me=cheap), I test it against a lens of a known (to me) quality.

I will set up a tripod and control for as many variables as I can, and then scan the results and see where/what the truth is - for me, anyway.

This helps me determine things that are hard to pin down, such as the lens' 'sweet spot' or best f-stop to use for maximum sharpness. It tells me what the bokeh looks like wide-open. If there is a tendency to lens flare, I may see that as well. And finally, if there is any otherwise undefinable 'quality' or 'signature' to the lens that others wax poetic about but cannot seem to describe in literal terms, I see that as well.

Conclusions - no magical lenses. Most of them are very good performers under real-world conditions, and without access to high-end tools and an optical lab, spending a huge amount on glass doesn't make a lot of sense - to me, and for my purposes, anyway.

However, I've found some lenses that *do* stand out head and shoulders above others.

Number one - the Pentax Super-Multi-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 in M42 mount. That lens is a killer. Nothing else I've ever tried even comes close for sharpness at every aperture. Granted, I don't have access to Canon "L" glass and other lenses made of unaffordium.

Another lens that blows me away - the Pentax non-SMCF 70~210 f/4 zoom. I love the lens at about 90mm and f/4 on a digital SLR for environmental portraits from about 20 feet away - stunning.

And I often joke about it, but the Sears 135mm f/2.8 Macro lens, in PKA mount, made in Korea, is excellent even wide-open (to my eyes). Goes for less than $20 new in the box as old stock.

Others are less stellar, not quite 'knock your socks off' but I still find them excellent for the money, like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 (black) LTM mount lens and my A. Schacht Travenar series LTM lenses from 35mm to 135mm.

The Agfa Karat IV 50mm f/2 Solagon lens (unfortunately a fixed-lens rangefinder) has a quality that is breathtaking wide-open, a real pity it is not removable.

I would not know these things if I did not try them against each other in a reasonably controlled environment. Nothing I see online convinces me like seeing it with my own eyes.

 

[raid]

The Canon 50/1.2L and 85mm/1.2L are very sharp lenses. I agree with you that the Pentax SMC 50/1.4 is a killer lens when it comes to sharpness. Other "super" lenses that I have are the Nikkor 55mm/3.5 micro and the Canon 50mm/3.5 macro and the Pentax 50mm/4 macro. The Canon 80-200/4L is amazing.

I bought these lenses based on online comments/reviews about them.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I'm a hobbyist, buy lenses, hack them, and always test them. I've sold quite a few of them, often "on request".

If you are going to adapt a Zeiss Tessar made in M42 mount for an SLR to be RF coupled on a Leica, I highly suggest testing it.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is the first photography forum I've ever been a member of and one of the things that has surprised me is how often people seem to shoot 'lens tests'.

Do you not take a newly purchased car for a test drive? Do you not smell a bottle of cologne before buying it, or do you buy it, spray it on and hope for the best?

I also test any new headphones, 'cause I like to hear my favorite music well. But anybody with a tin ear wouldn't care and it'll all be the same to them.

I guess that's why you test things, to see if they're good.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess that's why you test things, to see if they're good.

Yes, but there's a big difference between testing something to see if it does what you want, i.e. taking pictures with it (which you can hardly avoid doing); testing resolution, distortion, etc., with test charts; and obsessively comparing it with another lens you own.

Most amateur 'tests' are appallingly badly designed anyway -- colour neg film, commercial processing, scanner -- whereas if you are going to do it properly you need consistently processed film (and always the same film), a microscope for examining sharpness (and grain, in film tests -- and a photomicrographic outfit so you can compare pics rather than trying to remember which looks grainier), a shutter speed tester for leaf shutter lenses... As for comparing actual apertures with marked, this is REALLY difficult.

A thourough test like Raid's is one thing, but most people's 'tests' are so casual that they tell you next to nothing that you could not learn from taking pictures.

Then there is the informal testing that most of us, surely, do when we first get a lens: a wall or other straight line near the edge to check for distortion, twigs or telephone wires against the sky for flare, maybe even an informal vignetting test at full aperture (sky, white wall, whatever). With half a dozen shots or fewer we can see if there are any nasty surprises; we don't need much more.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[projectbluebird]

Sort of?

Sort of?

I don't shoot lens tests, but I test my lenses... if that makes sense.

Whenever I get a new (to me) lens, I'll shoot with it for awhile. So I can get an idea of it's handling, abilities, "fingerprint" etc. But I don't stick it on a tripod and shoot a wall because A) I don't own a tripod, and never use one. And B) How often do you really take a picture of a brick wall?

I prefer to see how my lens performs under actual use. Typically I shoot under widely varying conditions, this usually gives me a fairly good idea of what a lens can or cannot do, under a range of apertures and lighting. But I don't shoot test targets or setups, I don't particularly care about lpm or MTF curves. (blashphemy I know) If I like what I see, I'll keep the lens. I very rarely sell (or buy) a lens, but there's always a reason.

Some of this indifference is because most of the lenses I own are usually decades old, even if I went to the trouble of tracking down contemporary lens reports, my particular lens may have aged to a different condition. That said, looking at actual photos made with a lens I'm interested in can be very informative, the test shots by Raid and others are particularly handy in this regard.

 

[Ade-oh]

Do you not take a newly purchased car for a test drive? Do you not smell a bottle of cologne before buying it, or do you buy it, spray it on and hope for the best?

In the sense that I go out and use a lens then of course I test it, but what I don't do is 'test' things like edge sharpness, distortion and so on. If the pictures look OK, then that's fine by me and most of them have. As I mentioned above, over 30 years or so of taking photographs, I've only bought one lens that obviously wasn't fit for purpose (I suspect it was faulty rather than bad design) but that was clear from simply taking normal pictures. I generally try to avoid using lenses wide open, unless I'm looking for a specific effect, and my experience has been that once you get around f5.6-f8, it's pretty much impossible to tell different lenses of similar focal length apart.