Super scientific LOMO vs Zeiss test

Huss

Veteran
Local time
6:52 PM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Location
CA
My extremely super scientific LOMO vs Zeiss test.

LOMO Minitar 32 2.8 Art lens vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4

First off, the view through the VF with lens attached:

LOMO:
image_zpsqfavbxkb.jpeg


Zeiss:
image_zps49zixemm.jpeg


Both shot at 2.8, 1/60, ISO 1000
In LR -same colour balance 2800 -4, both profiled to their LR settings.

Big crop from center of the image:

LOMO:
LomoVsZeiss-1_zpshb5rhhno.jpg

Zeiss:
LomoVsZeissZ-1_zpsl7eabdhd.jpg


The LOMO sharpens up dramatically as it is stopped down. But as this is an extremely super scientific test I have not shown that as I have just been informed that dinner is ready.

As for physical size of the lens, all you need to know is that the entire LOMO lens is smaller than the lens mount cap of the Zeiss.
And that it is $349 vs $2290 for the Zeiss.

Peace out Komrads.
 
I think if I paid more than $10 for the Lomo I'd be seriously disappointed.

My 1939 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar is probably sharper than both 😀 .
CNV00018%20copy_zpsu34guduc.jpg

I liked the test.
 
I think if I paid more than $10 for the Lomo I'd be seriously disappointed.

😱😀

I'd be ecstatic if I could get that lens for $10.01!

The rendering looks exactly the same as the examples posted for the 'new' Leica 28 5.6, which costs 250 times your level of serious disappointment.
 
The new Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 is an ultra modern optical design that is IMO better than the current Leica equivalent. It is optically outstanding. I am 100% certain that in a properly executed sharpness comparison, the difference between the Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 lens and your 1939 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar would be night and day. Especially at f1.4, f2, and f2.8 😀

My 1939 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar is probably sharper than both.
 
The new Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 is an ultra modern optical design that is IMO better than the current Leica equivalent. It is optically outstanding. I am 100% certain that in a properly executed sharpness comparison, the difference between the Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 lens and your 1939 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar would be night and day. Especially at f1.4, f2, and f2.8 😀
I agree. BUT for normal practical purposes there is probably not that much difference in sharpness between the £120 Elmar and the uber-expensive Zeiss Distagon.

If you can make my 3.5.5cm Elmar open up to 1.4 I'll buy you a drink 😀 .
 
I agree. BUT for normal practical purposes there is probably not that much difference in sharpness between the £120 Elmar and the uber-expensive Zeiss Distagon.

Whether or not the photos are any good is of course a whole different matter, BUT I reckon it would be pretty easy to show clear sharpness differences between the Distagon and your £120 Elmar even in normal practical shooting 😉
 
Whether or not the photos are any good is of course a whole different matter, BUT I reckon it would be pretty easy to show clear sharpness differences between the Distagon and your £120 Elmar even in normal practical shooting 😉
Ok - in the spirit of weekend competition - here is a shot taken with my Leica 111c, £120 uncoated Elmar, High Street processed - nothing fancy.
I have to warn you that I stopped the lens down a bit for this shot 😀 . I know this is an M forum, the other guy will be using an M body (probably).
CNV00032%20copy_zpsgegb7hen.jpg


Similar shot, but using an M6 and late version 2.8 50mm Elmar.
I prefer the top shot.
CNV00020%20copy_zpsmsi07qwz.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom