pdmphoto wrote:
It's lame to compare a f/1.2 lens to a f/1.7...

No it is'nt...It would only be "lame" if I was comparing them at WO apertures which I was'nt.
I was comparing them at the same apertures, f2.8 and f5.6 in this case.
Given the same lighting strength in front of the lens the same amount of light reaches the sensor through each lens as long as the same aperture is used.
It would'nt matter if I was comparing a Canon R 50mm 0.95 with a Tessar 50mm f2.8, as long as the same apertures are used on both lenses.

Alf Beharie wrote:

Grade: 4.8 35mm/AF Canon EF 200/1,8L USM
Grade: 4.7 35mm/AF Contax G Planar 45/2,0
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Tokina AT-X 90/2,5 macro
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Pentax SMC-A 85/1,4
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF LeicaR Elmarit-R 90/2,8 discontinued
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF LeicaM Summicron-M 50/2,0
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Contax Planar T* 85/1,4
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Contax Planar T* 50/1,7
Grade: 4.6 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 50/2,8 macro
Grade: 4.6 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 50/1,4
Grade: 4.6 35mm/AF Canon EF 85/1,2L USM
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF LeicaR Summicron-R 50/2
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF LeicaR Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100/2,8
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF LeicaM Summilux-M 75/1,4
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF LeicaM Elmarit-M 90/2,8
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF Konica M-Hexanon 50/f2
Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF Contax Planar T* 50/1,4
Grade: 4.5 35mm/AF Minolta AF 50/2,8 Macro1:1
Grade: 4.5 35mm/AF Minolta AF 100/2,8 Macro 1:1
Grade: 4.5 35mm/AF Canon EF 135/2L USM
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF Nikkor Micro 55/2,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF Nikkor 85/1,4
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF Nikkor 105/1,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF LeicaR Apo-Telyt-R 280/2,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF LeicaR Apo-Telyt-R 180/3,4
Grade: 4.4 35mm/MF Canon FD 50/1,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 50/1,7
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Nikkor AF 50/1,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Minolta AF 50/1,4
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Minolta AF 100/2,0
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Contax G Sonnar 90/2,8
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Canon EF 50/2,5 Macro
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,4 USM
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Canon EF 400/2,8L II
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Canon EF 400/2,8 L IS USM
Grade: 4.3 35mm/MF Yashica ML 50/1,4
Grade: 4.3 35mm/MF LeicaR Summilux-R 50/1,4
Grade: 4.3 35mm/MF LeicaM Summicron-M 90/2,0
Grade: 4.3 35mm/MF Contax Distagon T* 28/2,8
Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Tamron AF SP 90/2,8 Macro
Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 100/2,8 macro
Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Nikkor AF DC 135/2D
Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Contax G Biogon 21/2,8
Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Canon EF 300/4L USM
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Tamron SP 90/2,5 macro
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Pentax SMC-A Macro 200/4ED
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Pentax SMC-A 135/1,8
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Olympus 90/2 macro
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Nikkor Noct 58/1,2
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Nikkor 85/2,0
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Nikkor 50/1,2
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Nikkor 105/2,5
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF LeicaR Vario-Elmar 80-200/4
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF LeicaM Tele-Elmar-M 135/4,0
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF LeicaM Summilux-M 50/1,4
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF LeicaM Noctilux-M 50/1,0
Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Konica M-Hexanon 28/f2.8
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Sigma AF 90/2,8 Makro
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Sigma AF 50/2,8 EX Macro
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Nikkor AF-I 300/2,8 IF-ED
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Nikkor AF Micro 60/2,8D
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Nikkor AF 85/1,8
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Nikkor AF 50/1,4D
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Contax G Biogon 28/2,8
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 80-200/2,8 L
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,8 II
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 100/2 USM
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Nikkor Micro 105/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Nikkor F 28/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Nikkor 50/1,8 (E Series)
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Nikkor 400/2,8 IF-ED
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Nikkor 180/2,8 ED
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF LeicaM Summicron-M 35/2,0
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF LeicaM Elmarit-M 28/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF LeicaM Elmarit-M 135/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Contax Sonnar T* 85/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/MF Contax Sonnar T* 135/2,8
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Sigma AF 105/2,8 EX Macro
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Nikkor AF-S 80-200/2,8 IF-ED
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Minolta AF 28/2,0
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Minolta AF 200/2,8 APO-G
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Contax G Planar 35/2,0
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 85/1,8 USM
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-200/4 L
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 200/2,8L II



while this list is most definately taken off another source, it's definately not believeable as i have owned or used 6 lenses in the list and their iq or sharpness do not correlate with their relative rankings.

but i do agree, lens testing is definately a thankless task.. i don't have either of the lenses on topic nor have a relavent mount. but i thank you for bringing up the zeiss myth topic.

kidtexas wrote:
Andrew Gough wrote:
I'd be surprised if a modern manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Pentax etc...) had a bad 50 at all. It is probably the easiest lens to make, and cheaply too - look at the Canon 50mm F/1.8.

IMHO, the biggest difference is how they 'paint' the image, or what the designers goal was. They are all sharp in the center, but it is the bokeh, colour, edge transition, contrast etc... that make up the differences. And, in this regard, the Zeiss look is definitely different from the Canon's.

I'd argue with you on the second point. The qualities that seem to make or break a lens in a lot of cases are contrast, sharpness, distortion, and variation of these qualities across the frame. Not bokeh, edge transition, etc. And sharpness is directly related to contrast.

Neither of the lenses in this test are modern designs. Of all the 50's floating around, a lot are *not* modern designs. The 50/1.2 is, the Zeiss ZM 50's are, the Zeiss Z* 50s are, the Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH and 50/2.5 are, the Sigma 50/1.4 is, etc. As far as I know, the Canon 50/1.4, 50/1.8, and numerous other 50's are pretty old designs. Even the ones I listed as 'modern' might just be recycled and touched up older designs, say the Zeiss Z* lenses. To my knowledge, only Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH and the Sigma 50/1.4 are cutting edge designs that aren't based on classic 50 mm designs. The Canon 50/1.2 L might be too - I don't know enough about that lens to say, though it does seem to be under corrected for spherical aberration, hence the noticeable focus shift. I of course could be wrong about other lenses; its not like I've researched them exhaustively.

I did say "etc..." so I would agree with adding distortion, coma, CA etc... To me this discussion is not really relevant, because the test does not really establish anything, the differences are minute, and easily fall within the production tolerances of the lenses and adapters. Because of this, I cannot draw a sound conclusion.

I do know that I prefer Zeiss, and that is what is important to me. My personal experience with the Zeiss 50mm F/1.7 is that it is a very sharp lens. Also, I did use the FD line extensively in the film days, but that would hardly be fair comparison. In the end, your mileage may differ.

There has been some fair critism of the way I took the test crops shown earlier in this thread so taking this on board I decided to have another go at this comparison but in much more controlled conditions...Indoors using flash and keeping the framing exactly the same by moving the camera closer or further from the test target...And just to spice it up a bit I decided to test two other 50mm lenses at the same time.
The comparison crops were pasted together on photoshop and text added. The Auto colour tool was used on most of the f2.8 crops as the camera had metering issues with the onboard flash at that aperture and you can see the result of this with text on the gas canister looking orange instead of red as it should be.
I added +20 contrast to every crop whilst also reducing the brightness of each crop by -10 but thats the total amount of processing done to the images.
I used Irfanview to crop the original test images and to resize the test sample pic.
The Oreston had to be moved closest to the target so its slightly wider than the others with Canon being the furthest away.
Here are the results:

http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p61807130.html

Click on the pic to see it at 100%.

I think that the Zeiss and Canon were focused at different distances at f/2,8. The Zeiss is clearly sharper on the text in this middle of the crop, but the Canon is sharper on the toothbrush... Hard to make conclusions based on that.

At f/5,6 I don't really see anything in the Zeiss image which is as sharp as I would expect. Can you show another crop from further back? I have a feeling that the Zeiss may be focused past the page we see...

What about at f/1,7 or f/1,8?

Alf Beharie wrote:

Yes, apparently that might be a good idea because the lighting conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the results...All four crops are slightly underexposed but the FL crops are more underexposed than the Zeiss crops...In case you are not aware of it that gives an advantage to the Zeiss, yet its still not as sharp as the FL.

Yes, what in the possible world could different lighting conditions have to do with the rendering of a photographic image!

Seriously, if the light is changing dramatically and both the direction of light and scene contrast are affected, apparent sharpness could easily be influenced to a great degree. That's basic photo lighting 101.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sam N wrote:
Maybe the OP was just getting fed up with all this talk of "3D"... heh.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Interestingly, regarding design, the most current Z series 50 1.4 shares the exact same optical design with the older CY 50 1.4 AND this CY 50 1.7! So, that basic design goes back to at least 1975. Even before that, you will find that many normal lenses shared this basic 7 element design, though there were exceptions:

carstenw wrote:
I think that the Zeiss and Canon were focused at different distances at f/2,8. The Zeiss is clearly sharper on the text in this middle of the crop, but the Canon is sharper on the toothbrush... Hard to make conclusions based on that.

At f/5,6 I don't really see anything in the Zeiss image which is as sharp as I would expect. Can you show another crop from further back? I have a feeling that the Zeiss may be focused past the page we see...

What about at f/1,7 or f/1,8?

The focus point for all four lenses was the text on the gas canister, not the toothbrush or the book behind. The Zeiss has better contrast at f2.8 but its not sharper as you cant read the text on the canister as clearly as you can on the FL and Oreston crops.

Alf Beharie wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I think that the Zeiss and Canon were focused at different distances at f/2,8. The Zeiss is clearly sharper on the text in this middle of the crop, but the Canon is sharper on the toothbrush... Hard to make conclusions based on that.

At f/5,6 I don't really see anything in the Zeiss image which is as sharp as I would expect. Can you show another crop from further back? I have a feeling that the Zeiss may be focused past the page we see...

What about at f/1,7 or f/1,8?

The focus point for all four lenses was the text on the gas canister, not the toothbrush or the book behind. The Zeiss has better contrast at f2.8 but its not sharper as you cant read the text on the canister as clearly as you can on the FL and Oreston crops.

I'm looking at the image now and the Zeiss looks to have better contrast and sharpness at 2.8 vs the Canon. The contrast of the Zeiss is certainly helping with the perceived sharpness of the images too.

Not sure what happened at f/5.6 seeing as how the Zeiss shot has the can looking blurry and the text behind it sharp, while all the other lenses has the can and text behind it looking sharp.

Alf Beharie wrote:
tmessenger wrote:
FL 55/1.2 @ f1.2

First of all, I would like to thank Alf for the time and effort for putting all this online. You know, when somebody does something for us...
Now to this second test, maybe I am a little tired right now, but for me, the Zeiss pretty much wins in the 2.8 image. Then, the 5.6 image is actually softer than the 2.8, if you look at the text at least. This is a little bit of strange because I would not expect a 1.7 lens to bail out at 5.6 already.
Problem is these tests are at close distance, and that close, you quickly run out of DOF. So I zould expect some kind of focus shift between the 2.8 and the 5.6 image of the Zeiss.

slungu wrote:
First of all, I would like to thank Alf for the time and effort for putting all this online. You know, when somebody does something for us...
Now to this second test, maybe I am a little tired right now, but for me, the Zeiss pretty much wins in the 2.8 image. Then, the 5.6 image is actually softer than the 2.8, if you look at the text at least. This is a little bit of strange because I would not expect a 1.7 lens to bail out at 5.6 already.
Problem is these tests are at close distance, and that close, you quickly run out of DOF. So I zould expect some kind of focus shift between the 2.8 and the 5.6 image of the Zeiss.

Its true I did'nt refocus before the f5.6 shots but then I should'nt really need to...If most of the target is in focus at f2.8 then surely more should be in focus at f5.6?
Bearing in mind that I'm using a 1.7x crop camera they should all look good right across the frame but these are centre crops and I know the corner performance of the Oreston to be poor through earlier test shots when I first got the lens, on another 1.7x crop camera. The later Pentacon 50mm f1.8, which is based on improved Oreston optics, has better performance in the corners but can suffer from a magenta centre cast problem in strong light due to its shiney chromed Iris blades.
I was amazed at how good the Oreston performs at both apertures though.
The Canon and Zeiss are good right across the frame but what a dissapointment with the Tessar!

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:

Yes, apparently that might be a good idea because the lighting conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the results...All four crops are slightly underexposed but the FL crops are more underexposed than the Zeiss crops...In case you are not aware of it that gives an advantage to the Zeiss, yet its still not as sharp as the FL.

Yes, what in the possible world could different lighting conditions have to do with the rendering of a photographic image!

Seriously, if the light is changing dramatically and both the direction of light and scene contrast are affected, apparent sharpness could easily be influenced to a great degree. That's basic photo lighting 101.

I was about to stop there and go back to school. And back to school I did for the past 2 days at a local university for some refresher course not related to photographic.
But just to add on top of what you and other knowledgeable people have already put up, the sensitivity of the sensor react differently at different exposure setting (just like banding).
I wonder if Alf ever took that into consideration when he test those lenses?

Alf Beharie wrote:


The four crosshatched elements are made of some special "high-index" glass apparently...Canons blurb of the time states this, quote: "Utilization of four high-index glasses of a new type, together with a new design and positioning of the optical system, has completely eliminated high curvature of field and spherical aberration, resulting in greater center clarity, unusual for a lens with a maximum aperture opening of f/1.2."


Given the timeframe probably lead or lanthanum. Thorium would mean yellowed lenses and I've not heard of that with the FL 55/1.2 (although the 58/1.2 FL is thoriated). Very interesting! Lanthanum is very low dispersion high refractive index glass originally used by Kodak. Lead oxide infused glass obviously has low dispersion as well if you look at the C/Y 21mm distagon, it also has a high refractive index.

I also think the C/Y has better [everything] at F/2.8. That it is less sharp (than itself at F/2.8) at F/5.6 indicates a centering inconsistency. A good sample of this lens is better than this one at both apertures, and better than the 50F/1.2 as soon as you hit F/2.2 or higher. Given the choice of one of the lenses, the C/Y wouldn't be the one I chose, though... :-)
There's quite a difference in price/exclusivity. the F/1.7 is the "as cheap as we can make it without embarrasing ourself"-lens, and the F/1.2 Canon is "as expensive as we think anyone will be willing to pay, top of the line"-lens. That the C/Y can keep up, and even be better in quite a few circumstances is actually quite impressive.

I'm presently working in a project involving one of the founding persons behind the photodo measurements, I'll ask him how the weighed grade was calculated, if he's willing to disclose any details. AFAIK the lenses were measured with equipment similar to the optical reference instruments that Leica/Zeis Oberkochen use - not on film/digital that is. But I have no idea how sharpness/CA/center-edge and so on was weighed in the final number.

theSuede wrote:
I'm presently working in a project involving one of the founding persons behind the photodo measurements, I'll ask him how the weighed grade was calculated, if he's willing to disclose any details. AFAIK the lenses were measured with equipment similar to the optical reference instruments that Leica/Zeis Oberkochen use - not on film/digital that is. But I have no idea how sharpness/CA/center-edge and so on was weighed in the final number.

Interesting. I have this vague idea they (the Photodo guys) used an optical bench at Hasselblad, Gothenburg, for their lens tests.
But, however they did it, I'm pretty sure they tried one copy of each lens only. Still, I find their data useful and I still check their MTF curves from time to time.

You may have discovered focus shift in the Zeiss at f5.6. But whatever the cause, the background text is clearly sharper than the canister and brush, leading one to ask how far behind the background text lies the real focal plane.

Yes, exactly my point from earlier. The focus plane is in different places for the different lenses, at least the Contax and the Canon, so making proper conclusions is impossible. I would redo the test, and include an element which makes it easy to tell exactly where the focus plane is, like a ruler going back into the frame, and then redo the focus for each lens until they are all in exactly the same place. I do not think that the Contax was given an equal footing in the current test, so I am unconvinced of the sensationalist subject header.

dave chilvers wrote:
I purchased a Contax 50 1.7 because of ratings and have always been unhappy. My cheapo Canon 50 1.8 mk11 slates it would you believe!

I did a brick wall test Canon 50 1.8 mk2, Contax 50 1.7, Voigt 40 Ultron, Nikon 55 2.8 micro and Leica 50 f2 Sumi (latest) and the Leica beat them all centre and corners.



I bought two copies of the contax 1.7 and tested them (unfortunately not 100% scientifically) against an FL 55/1.2, a MK 1 EF 50/1.8, a Nikon 50/1.8 E, a Rokkor 58/1.2, a Revuenon 50/1.4, and a Tamron 28-75/2.8.

About a week after that I sold both contaxs.

I found both the FL and EF to be as good or better at same apertures.

I did like the colour which the contaxs produced (reds, specifically), but I found the difference so minor that it wasn't of any use to me.

The reason I sold them was that I could basically get all the performance of the planar 1.7 from my cracked-open, several-times-disassembled mk1 EF 1.8, with auto-aperture, matrix metering (or whatever canon calls it) and AF thrown in.

Interestingly, I found the bokeh of the Contax to be fine, whereas most people on the internetz claim it is terrible.

The FL 55 is a ******* sharp lens in the central 2/3 at f2 and onwards. I have yet to truly analise it's corner performance.

I wholeheartedly enjoy mine, even though its a little less characterish than the Rokkor. My main gripe with it is LoCA. Its get some strong cyan bokeh fringing going on at wide apertures. I'm also in two minds about its colour rendition and it isn't as good as some other lenses for micro-contrast.
oh and it flares like a match when shooting streetlamps at night.



Flare, f/8 or f/11:

But the EF 50 f1.8 has horrible bokeh; does it not bother you ?