My latest comparison of lenses

The last part was taking photos with the Canon 50mm 1.5 (Sonnar) LTM.

Canon 50mm 1.5 at 16:

Canon50mm15at16.jpg



Canon 50mm 1.5 at 8:

Canon50mm15at8.jpg


Canon 50mm 1.5 at 4:

Canon50mm15at4.jpg



Canon 50mm 1.5 at 2.8:

Canon50mm15at28.jpg



Canon 50mm 1.5 at 2.0:

Canon50mm15at20.jpg
 
This thread would have gotten many replies if it had been : "Canon 50mm 1.4 vs. Canon 50mm 1.5".

Have you noticed the different bokeh for the four lenses? It is intersting to see the bokeh change with different aperture settings. Some Christmas tree lights appear as circular and in other images they appear as oval. The Canon 50/1.5 shows lower sharpness at 2.0 than the other three lenses. Was it the focusing or was it the lens?
 
Last edited:
Here are some crops at 2.0:

Planar 45mm 2.0:

Planar45mmat20-1.jpg



Canon 50mm 1.4:

Canon50mm14at20-1.jpg



Summicron-C 40mm 2.0:

SummicronC40mm20at20-1.jpg


Canon 50mm 1.5:

Canon50mm15at20-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here are the comparison results for the 28mm lenses.

1. Kobalux 28mm at 16:

Kobalux28mmat16.jpg


2. Kobalux 28mm at 8:

Kobalux28mmat8.jpg


3. Kobalux 28mm at 4:
Kobalux28mmat4.jpg




4. Kobalux 28mm at 3.5:


Kobalux28mmat35.jpg
 
Did you leave auto ISO on? It seems so (at least in some comparisons) since on f 16 there is more grain in the photo's, which seems to degrease by opening the diapraghm....
 
Last edited:
This must have been the lamest thread of any time.
Anyways, this is it. The lens comparison is over.
What has it shown?
All lenses compared are good. The Zeiss lenses look extra sharp.
Bokeh is excellent for all lenses.
I miss "your" input.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
Did you leave auto ISO on? It seems so since on f 16 there is a lot of grain in the photo's, which degreases by opening the diapraghm....
Click to expand...

Hi Ron,
I used a Bessa T without any auto settings.

In each image, I carefully measured the exposure. Did I make errors? My honest reply is that I can make errors as I am human. What sometimes happened was that the meter would read "between green and red" on the upper side while it would read "between green and red" on the lower side. I would then try to adjust the shutter speed until the meter read green. This was not always possible for a given aperture and speed.
 
I view your ‘lens comparisons’ and do find them informative.
The Planar 45mm is a very impressive lens. (I personally own the summi-40)
The old Rokkor 28mm really holds up well against the new Zeiss. (I’m partial to the Rokkor, I own one, CLA’d by John Van Stelten) 🙂
 
Since the window light was the only source of illumination in the lens comparison, it can happen that a cloud passes in front of the sun and suddenly the exposure changes.

While the new Zeiss lenses seem to be quite impressive, the vintage lenses chosen by me are also good.

The Rokkor 28mm is as good as the Leica 28mm of its time period. The Summicron-C 40mm lens is very sharp and equal if not better than more costly Leica lenses.
 
It has been clarified to me that the lens optics stayed 100% the same as the ones in the Contax G1/G2 lenses. The core held the optics in place.
 
The 28mm lenses have a reduced bokeh OOF effect than the 40mm-50mm lenses. Take a look at aperture setting 2.8 for all lenses. The OOF of the Christmas tree lights is pronounced with the 40mm-50mm lenses whereas it is minimal with the 28mm lenses.
 
raid said:
16.jpg
Click to expand...

I wonder why does converted 45/2 have DOF scale so 'tolerant'
like: 3m..inf for f/16 if focused on inf
while most of 50mm have it 5m..inf
sure 45 is wider than 50 but is it really so much difference?
for example nokton 40mm has scale 4m or 4.5m..inf
 
This is a good point.
I do not have the answer to your question.
Maybe it was incorrectly done on this adaptation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom