Non-formal Testing of 85mm~105mm Lenses

[raid]

I just completed putting together the results from the roll of color film (Fuji 100) for my test of rangefinder lenses below:

1. Summicron 90mm/2 (first version)
2. Canon 85mm/1.9
3. Canon 85mm/1.8 (Mark)
4. Nikkor 85mm/2 (Roland)
5. ZK 85/f2 (1950 "Zonnar Krasnogorski") in Cyrillic "3K 85/f2". (Roland)
6. Elmarit 90mm/2.8 (old design)
7. Steinheil 85mm/2.8
8. Nikkor 105mm/2.5 (Kiu)
9. Elmar (chrome, coated) 90mm/4
10. Elmar (black, coated, different aperture clicks from chrome) 90mm/4

This is by no means a standardized test where MTF curves or color charts are used or where lines are being measured. It is a simple way of looking at results obtained from different lenses to see how these lenses render a face.

I encountered some problems on the way. A 24 exposure roll was barely sufficient to cover all cases. My daughter sometimes moved and I would get a blur. My appologies to the owners of the lenses if one shot got messed up with your lenses. I know that you want your lenses to shine.

I know that some of you voiced an opinion that you do not want to look at 24 different photos side by side. Therefore, I grouped the photos in groups of two lenses at a time. Maybe this grouping makes it easier to see differences.

I will later post the results for B&W. Hopefully, the cases that were blurred here will come out sharp there. I will also later post the results of the thrird roll of film for flare and bokeh.

Again, no appologies about a simple way of testing, but a hint to take things with a grain of salt.


When pointing the mouse on any photo, the lens information and aperture setting will be displayed.

Here is the link to the groups of photos:

Elmar 90mm/4 chrome lens and black lens
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626534


Nikkor 105mm/2.5 and Nikkor 85mm/2.0
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626537


Steinheil 90mm/2.8 and Elmarit 90mm/2.8
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626544

Canon 85mm/1.8 and 85mm/1.9
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626547


Summicron 90mm/2 and ZK 85/f2 (1950 "Zonnar Krasnogorski")
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626548


Your comments are always welcome.


Raid

 

[raid]

If we take a look at the Steinheil lens and the Elmarit,

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626544,

I note the following:

1. The Steinheil lens is sharp wide open.
2. The photos taken with the Steinheil look cooler (color) than those taken with the Elmarit.
3. The photo taken with the Elmarit at 4.0 has a blur since Dana moved suddenly. At 4.0, Dana sits still, and the Elmarit shows its sharpness.

 

[dexdog]

Raid, as noted by ferider, fast turn-around time on the test and results. Thanks once again for the lens test.

Only glanced that the shots quickly, and will have to go and look again, but it appears that the nikkor 85/2 suffered from focus issues- the design on the chair that your daughter was sitting in was rendered much more clear than her face. I did not see much difference between the Canon 85/1.8 and the 85/1.9 at the smaller aperatures, but the 85/1.8 really shines at @2.0. May post again after further study.

 

[raid]

Raid, as noted by ferider, fast turn-around time on the test and results. Thanks once again for the lens test.

Only glanced that the shots quickly, and will have to go and look again, but it appears that the nikkor 85/2 suffered from focus issues- the design on the chair that your daughter was sitting in was rendered much more clear than her face. I did not see much difference between the Canon 85/1.8 and the 85/1.9 at the smaller aperatures, but the 85/1.8 really shines at @2.0. May post again after further study.

Mark,
I hope that the B&W shots will not suffer from blurring for the Nikkor 85mm lens. I was quite happy to see the old Canon 85mm/1.9 do so well with the Canon 85mm/1.8.

Raid

 

[ywenz]

All the pics are broken links..

 

[raid]

You can see that the f2.8 Nikkor shot is sharp. It must be hard to focus a moving child with an external finder. I have numerous shots with that lens that are very sharp close up. See

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5976

all the color ones are shot at f2.

Roland.

Yes, the 2.8 shot is sharp.
I just got back a roll of film taken with the Nikkor 85mm/2 lens.
The lens is sharp. I am also concluding that an external multiple focal lengths finder is not the best to use with tele lenses.

Raid

 

[dexdog]

Yes, the 2.8 shot is sharp.
I just got back a roll of film taken with the Nikkor 85mm/2 lens.
The lens is sharp. I am also concluding that an external multiple focal lengths finder is not the best to use with tele lenses.

Raid

Yes, I agree that the 2.8 shot is nice and sharp. I should have been more specific, it's the one at 2.0 that was out of focus. Raid, I can understand how difficult it is to get good focus on a moving subject.

 

[raid]

Yes, I agree that the 2.8 shot is nice and sharp. I should have been more specific, it's the one at 2.0 that was out of focus. Raid, I can understand how difficult it is to get good focus on a moving subject.

Mark,
The chosen film was too slow.
I got great colors, but at the expense of risking blurring.
I hope that when I get back the B&W film that we will have another replicate of the posted test,and then we can also compare across rolls of film.

It took some thinking to pick the correct lens for a shot, and it was also a little problem to keep track which photo was taken by which lens and at which aperture when getting the scanned rollback. I double and triple checked the scans and the written notes that I have to make sure that the correct labeling is used for each photo.

I also had to have the right lens hood for each lens and also the M adapter for the screwmount lenses. I used a cable release in all photos.

Regards,
Raid

 

[raid]

All the pics are broken links..

What do you mean?
The posted links should take you to the photos. They do for me.
Let me know of the problem you encounter.

Raid

 

[ywenz]

Now the pics are working.. earlier, none of the pics showed up.

 

[Rich Silfver]

Nice.

I'm curious about the very strong differences in sharpnes between the teo Elmar 90/4 lenses (black vs chrome).

Is the chome a later model?

 

[raid]

Nice.

I'm curious about the very strong differences in sharpnes between the teo Elmar 90/4 lenses (black vs chrome).

Is the chome a later model?

Rich,
The chrome one has a focusing turn to the left whereas the black one rotates to the right. Both have lenses with a blueish tint, implying coating.

The chrome lens has SN 720xxx and the black one has SN 606xxx.
Actually, both are nice for portraits. I hope that the B&W shots will shed more light on these differences.

Note that the first two test shots (in the experiment) were of the chrome Elmar.
Maybe my eyes were not picking up the focus point.

Raid

 

[sf]

Raid, this is OT to this thread, but I think this is a great capture of subtle expression :

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4745894

 

[peterm1]

Raid

Nice shots and I loved the color rendition in these. Pretty subject too - your daughter, I take it. (I have seen her in other posts by you.) I am the same with my wife - she is very photogenic so she gets the job of being model pretty much all the time.

Now down to business. I found it hard to make out much difference in these given that they are scans and quite small ones at that. However like some others I noticed that several shots including some from your black Elmar 90mm were suffering from what looked like focus problems or maybe camera shake although to my eye it looked more like the former. I had a Canon 85mm f 1.8 and a Serenar 135mm f 4 once and never could get either of them to focus worth a damn so I know ti can be a problem with some lenses.

Nevertheless, keep up the good work.

Peter

 

[NIKON KIU]

Wow, I missed a lot! Got a lotta reading...
Kiu

 

[VinceC]

Lovely photos. I have to say I didn't see a rotten lens in the bunch. Less vignetting than I expected on the older lenses.

 

[payasam]

The ZK's rendition is markedly warmer than that of the Summicron. Same lighting?

 

[raid]

Focusing with ten different lenses can be a challenge. Once my hands and eyes got used to the lens, I switched toa nother lens. The testing had to be completed with this roll of film while my other daughter was taking her afternoon nap. I nowklnow that I need to do more testing to replace the messed up shots due to poor focusing.

I agree that no lens came out as a dog. When properly fcusedand when Dana sat still, the photos are sharp.

I am now seeing the disadvantage of the Bessa T; it doesnot have a viewfinder. I must focus first, take my eye to the external viewfinder and then takethe photo. By that time, Dana may have moved slightly. With a tele lens and at available lightwith an ASA 100 film, those seconds can make a difefrence in the focus point.

My bokeh test results are not to my liking. Does anyone have some ideas how to doan indoor bokeh test?

Raid

P.S. I am glad that the test is well received overall. Thanks.

 

[VinceC]

Separate finders really aren't too practical for telephotos. Close to 20 years ago I shot a Kiev and a Nikon S2 (just 50mm framelines) with telephoto lenses for awhile. I found that if you used a separate finder, it worked far better to frame first, then switch back to the RF patch and keep follow-focusing until the moment was right for taking the photo. This is the opposite of how to best handle wide-angles, where the focus isn't as critical.

I found that once I got used to the coverage of telephotos, I was pretty good at estimating framing using just the central RF patch and visualizing how the lens coverage differs from a 50mm lens. With an RF camera and parallax, telephoto shots (mine anyway) tend to be a little more loosely composed. I hardly ever crop my wide-angle or 50mm shots, but I do tend to crop the telephoto shots a bit to optimize their composition.

 

[rover]

Raid, thanks for the test. Good stuff here, I can't wait to get a chance to really look over all of the shots.