Raid's 35/40mm flare test: Analysis

[ferider]

I selected some of Raid's test pictures and did some post-processing
to allow easier comparison. I am trying to compare flare/micro-contrast,
sharpness and bokeh; After selecting only the lenses that are f2.8
or faster, I first automatically adjusted contrast (to eliminate
possible differences in exposure due to camera choice and lens
transmission loss - some lenses are older than others),
and then selected three areas in the pictures:

1. the candle flames on the lower right to look at flare in more detail
   (blue circles). In particular: how well are the shapes of the candle
   flames resolved
2. the writing on the DVD box on the table (green circles). Note that this
   is slightly off the focus point (the matchstick on the horse), so lack of
   readability of the writing doesn't necessarily imply that the lens is not
   sharp, but tells you more how thick the focal plane is.
3. an area in the glass doors of the curio in the background, where
   light sources are reflected (red circle above).

Here are the results:

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f1.[45] lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905475-O.jpg

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f2 lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905649-O.jpg

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f2.8 lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905516-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f1.[45] lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905306-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f2 lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905367-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f2.8 lenses:

Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905324-O.jpg

===========================================

You can also browse the above 6 pictures on smugmug directly,
via this gallery:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2836741

For the moment I will hold back my own conclusions, see for yourself
and tell us what you think.

Best,

Roland.

 

[aizan]

roland is da man!

 

[raid]

I am looking forward to people here adding their comments.
I will add my comments later on.

Raid

 

[Bryce]

Maybe a comparison of the corners of the frames would show a significant difference between the more modern lenses?
I don't see many real losers here, nor really obvious winners.
One thing I have noticed in comparing these frames, there is a just noticeable difference between the SC and MC versions of the Nokton 40mm. To me, it seems like the MC version would be a better choice by a very small margin; if you want flare it is easy enough to get. I'm thinking 30 seconds worth of elbow grease, some steel wool and a cheap old filter.
On the whole, at least from this series, it would be pretty difficult to say which lens shot which image. The pre- 1970 lenses all show more widespread flare; other differences are quite subtle to my eye.

 

[ferider]

I just noticed that when you browse the gallery directly via smugmug, you will be able to see much more detail.

Anyways, here are a few starting points for discussion:

- I agree the differences are very subtle, maybe due to low resolution, or not looking all the way out to the picture boundary. That by itself is a strong statement, since we are dealing with lenses between US 250 and $3000 value on the used market, sometimes used on a digital camera with crop factor. I would have a hard time identifying any lens (except for obvious DOF differences when shot wide open) from an on-line example picture, say if Raid posted another quizz.
- I am not sure if there is even little difference between MC and SC Nokton. What is seen above could be lens sample differences.
- The one lens that struck me as great is the Canon 35/1.5. Struck me so bad that I wish I had one. Before, I read mixed reports on this lens, but it is obviously very good, with more contrast than even the MC Nokton, wide open (I believe the Canon is single coated?)
- the 40 Summicron-C and CLE Rokkor have better bokeh than both 35 Summicrons ?

Any more ? Cheers,

Roland.

 

[raid]

Bryce,

I see differences between the modern lenses too. The original full sized images reveal quite a lot about the lenses. The bare bulb portion of the image can show you how resistant to flare a lens is. The small highlights in the cabinet glass windows give a hint of bokeh behavior.

Raid

 

[raid]

There is a big difference between the Summaron 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The Summaron 2.8 came out very strong, competing with the Summicron. As Roland said above, we have some expensive lenses here. Take also into account that the lens design of a 35mm lens allows for more optical performance than, say, a 21mm lens. The Elmar and the Summaron 3.5 may be poor examples in the test start-up.

I have a feeling that the only true differences will be in "flavor" or a lens. I have started today the portrait session, so maybe soon there will added information on how each lens renders a human face.


Raid

Raid

 

[Joerg]

R & R,

Wow what a body of work.
Not easy to pass judgment, we are talking subtle differences (except flare).

Thanks for all the work!!

Ciao

Joerg

 

[Bryce]

Raid-
Human faces would be a very good test.
I find Leica's lens naming scheme very confusing. I had been assuming that both the Summaron lenses are older models and probably single coated, and maybe hazed internally. Is this not true?

 

[raid]

Raid-
Human faces would be a very good test.
I find Leica's lens naming scheme very confusing. I had been assuming that both the Summaron lenses are older models and probably single coated, and maybe hazed internally. Is this not true?

Bryce: The Summaron 3.5 is quite old but the Elmar 3.5 is even older. The Summaron 2.8 came before the Summicron. I will inspect the Sumamron 3.5 for internal haze (it is my lens).

Raid

 

[ferider]

That Canon 35/1.5 rocks ...

That Canon 35/1.5 rocks ...

Thanks Joerg !

One more .... (no contrast modification of the original).

 

[raid]

Roland:What do you look for in the candlelight portions to reach an assessment?
Is it the halo for the candle light or the candles themselves or the crystal vase in the backgroundor all?
Why?

Sorry for putting you on the spot.

Raid

 

[ferider]

Roland:What do you look for in the candlelight portions to reach an assessment?
Is it the halo for the candle light or the candles themselves or the crystal vase in the backgroundor all?
Why?

Sorry for putting you on the spot.

Raid

Just a feeling, Raid, very subjective.

I like when the shape of the flame is nicely isolated from the flare,
a steep "Edge Spread Function". This is typical for Leitz lenses
(they are designed for this), but even more pronounced in
the Canon lens above.

Roland.

 

[raid]

Roland,
I see the vase being better defined with other lenses though.

So this means that another Canon 1.5 is a star; we recently had the Canon 50mm/1.5 being rediscovered by many people here. I wonder whether it is the Sonnar forumula that is giving the edge to these lenses.

Raid

 

[ferider]

On request of Magus a crop into the lightbulb:

The fast lenses wide open:

And including more lenses at f2:

Best,

Roland.

 

[foto_fool]

Thanks Raid & Roland:

It should no longer surprise me how well the 40mm lenses perform, but it does. Detail rendition, boke, flare resistance, and to a leser extent, contrast are quite good. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Canon 35mm/1.5 does in the portait comparison - VERY impressive here!

- John

 

[raid]

John,

Thanks for your support. I was getting nervous that input is rather limited so far, and we need all the encouragements to continue with the testing process. There are now comments on the test in two separate RF threads, so make sure to take a look at both of them. The more recent close-ups by Roland revealed that the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not do that well wide open in the flare test with the bare light bulb.

Raid

 

[Marc-A.]

It seems to me that there are less differences between 35mm lenses than between 50mm lenses. Am I wrong? If we put aside the early Leitz lenses (Elmar and Summaron SM), and the Canon 1.8 & 2, I can't see huge differences. As to sharpness and flare control, the CV lenses appear to be outstanding performers for the price: the Nokton 40 (any version) seems one of the very best, as does the CV PII, and the Skopar Classic 2.5 seems a bit superior to the Ultron 1.7. Would you agree?
I'm not particularly impressed by Leitz lenses, except for the Summilux 1.4 which is the best one.

 

[Marc-A.]

Oh I forgot: THANK YOU VERY MUCH RAID for the test, AND FERIDER for the comments!! GREAT WORK!

 

[Roel]

John,

Thanks for your support. I was getting nervous that input is rather limited so far, and we need all the encouragements to continue with the testing process. There are now comments on the test in two separate RF threads, so make sure to take a look at both of them. The more recent close-ups by Roland revealed that the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not do that well wide open in the flare test with the bare light bulb.

Raid

Raid and Roland,

Your work and effort is incredible. Please please continue. Got to admit that sometimes the differences or so small that I have to look more than a few times to see them. Perhaps that why the response is/was somewhat limited. We are still analising ourselves.. Anyhow, can't wait to see the next pictures and am very curious what this will bring forward! Must say that I like how the VC 40 is doing so far! I decided for it in stead of the Summaron 2.8. Mmm, let's wait and see if that was really smart..
Great test gentlemen!!

Thanks, Roel