I find these real life comparisons incredibly useful, keep them coming Bif! (Reassuring that I'm not the only one to mix up my results when posting!)
I'd love to see similar between the Z* 100/2 and the CV 125/2.5, especially for direct comparison bokeh, I know they're sharp!
I found this test a bit loosey-goosey, what with the musical Planars, moving tripods and refocussing. There does seem to be a persistent lack of sharpness from the Planar (whatever mount it may be ). For bokeh, the C/V is unquestionably light-years ahead. Not that we can extend that observation too much: both CZ and C/V are notoriously indifferent to smooth blur in their designs.
Hi Rico,
How does one change lenses without refocusing? Hehehee... But yeah, you're getting it right. I did 5 different scenes to show the trend. Generalities are really all these tests are good for. I find most comparisons as well as stand-alonf lens samples to be so. So the more data/scenes the better equipped we might be to form a reasonable opinion.
I did take an extra shot at the same distance without moving the tripod just to make sure that the bokeh was indeed truly representative /after/ moving the pod. Of the 10 or so comparison scenes I did one was different enough to be noticeable - it won't be used.
I do find the C/V to be a bit of a cream-machine tho. I think it's an inherent result of it's design - unlike any of the zeiss lenses I've ever used no matter the focal length. Zeisses /can/ produce cream but one has to really try - being conscious of BG/FG distances relative to the focus plane. There might be a creamy Zeiss but I dunno what it is. Maybe someone will harp in with the model that does. With the CV, really huge foreground objects can cause sharper bokeh falloff but those are the only occasions I've noticed it happening - so far.
Thanks Tim,
I still have the ZF 2.0 shots but I don't think they're useful without shooting the same scene under the same light with the CV in order to compare. Just by looking it's pretty obvious to me that the CV is sharper but I'll leave that for another thread. For this thread I still have several other areas to test and compare. Here's a Lanthar image not part of any comparison or anything that impressed me a lot. No processing was done except I did remove a little noise from the green water under the duck. The rest are ACR defaults (not zeroed, but the defaults.) - no other edits tho:
1/500s, F/2.5, ISO100 - APO Lanthar 125/2.5, GH1
100% crop of the above.
Some of the edges lost their color but no colored fringing and sharp right to the edges - which remain quite solid considering how blown out the BG is. Pretty amazing IMO.
Bifurcator wrote:
Whooops! I'm a nit-wit! I relocated all my data from that day and it was NOT the ZF that tested worse. OK, this is embarrassing! It was the C/Y Planar 100mm F2.0 Damn, I hate it when that happens! I did test (only) one ZF/100/2.0 but the two C/Y-100/2.0's are the ones I was comparing with. The other was a C/Y Sonar 100. From looking at my worksheets I didn't compare the ZF very closely at all - probably because it was $2,100 and the C/Y MP100/2.8 (with a closer Macro) was less than half that. It doesn't diminish anything in these tests of course, but I will go back and change any posts with tests in them to reflect the correct lenses mentioned/compared/tested. Wow, humble apologies all around....Show more →
That explains it then -- comparing a macro lens to a non-macro lens.
I think I'll post some samples showing the full frame bokeh of the MP100/2.8 at f/2.8 and f/4. There is quite a difference.
The CZ 100/2.8 sample looks sharper on the right hand side, softer on the left hand side. Also see some top to bottom variation. These are linear effects. Could there be some operator error here?
@Paul: I think that what you're seeing is the lens failing to bring red green and blue to a common focus. Bifurcator mentioned that he tried to get the green subpixels into best focus. When you look at the red and blue pixels, they are equally blurred on the left and on the right side. I don't see a variation in the sharpness of the green subpixels across the image.
Paul, that's your name? Hi Paul!
There's almost no operator error there - or at least less than 1º for sure. I use a mirror to center it nearly perfectly and then long rails to move it into position. Look at it at 1000% mag. and count the blur pixels. I think there's a slight optical illusion going on tho. And AhamB is right about the rest.
Bifurcator wrote:
I do find the C/V to be a bit of a cream-machine tho. I think it's an inherent result of it's design - unlike any of the zeiss lenses I've ever used no matter the focal length. Zeisses /can/ produce cream but one has to really try - being conscious of BG/FG distances relative to the focus plane. There might be a creamy Zeiss but I dunno what it is. ...
I won't say the C/V is bested but, of my C/Y lenses, the contenders are the Sonnars 85/100 and the Planar 100.
Mar 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
For people interested in the CV 125 lens. I belive they still have the 3 copies of this lens that I found in a Bangkok shop last month. Both new and used versions of it also
Of course. When people who know what they are see them, they grab'm right up!
I like their blurb at the bottom of one of their listing pages tho:
"Alas, the long rumored Voigtlander SL II 4-10,000/f.7 SuperSizedNoctNoct lens is not yet ready for the marketplace. Unconfirmed reports say the lone megalens prototype was blown over by high winds, unfortunately destroying Nagano's 1998 Winter Olympic Stadium."
Mar 11, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Of course. When people who know what they are see them, they grab'm right up!
I like their blurb at the bottom of one of their listing pages tho:
"Alas, the long rumored Voigtlander SL II 4-10,000/f.7 SuperSizedNoctNoct lens is not yet ready for the marketplace. Unconfirmed reports say the lone megalens prototype was blown over by high winds, unfortunately destroying Nagano's 1998 Winter Olympic Stadium."
No they are not sold out They have been in the shop since the begining of February (probably a lot longer). And I have been there 3 times during that month and also tested those lenses on my Canon bodies.
Most people that look at them know what they are seeing. But it's also an expensive lens. And even more so for most thai people with a normal Thai salary.
Bif, I think you were looking at the Camera Quest website, which belongs to Stephen Grandy. I think he was the first in the US to import CV lenses. Lars didn't post a link to the shop in Bangkok.
Mar 11, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
freaklikeme wrote:
Bif, I think you were looking at the Camera Quest website, which belongs to Stephen Grandy. I think he was the first in the US to import CV lenses. Lars didn't post a link to the shop in Bangkok.
There was a link and name and adress in the other thread that I had a link to.
Here it is again. The shop is also a Voigtlander official distributor. They have one used CV 125 in very good shape, and two new copies also of the CV 125. The prices last time I asked and also tried those lenses where about $ 1750-1800 for the used lens. And about $ 2200 for the new lenses http://www.avcamera.com/
OK, I went for round 2 of this total and inevitable knock-out in this battle of reputes!
It's another bokeh and sharpness contest but this time without moving the tripod at all. I took shots at 2.5, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, and 16 for the CV APO Lanthar 125/2.5 and 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, and 16 for the Contax Zeiss MP100/2.8. I'll post the 2.x, 5.6 and 16 shots here. If you're interested in the tweens you can find them here: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_ThemesEvents/CV_vs_CZ/Round_2/
Also again, these images are from the RAW with ACR settings all zeroed - not "default", but actually zeroed. I included a 100% crop of the focus point as well. I'll post each aperture in a separate post - three posts total.
Also once again I'd like to remind everyone that the Zeiss is an incredible lens! Easily one of the sharpest lenses in my collection! It's just that the Lanthar is from mars or some sheet - seriously an impossible lens! I did some tests yesterday and the APO Lanthar 125 actually out-resolved the Canon 300/2.8L - both standing in the same place, shooting the same subject at about 100 meters away! Holy cow!
). For bokeh, the C/V is unquestionably light-years ahead. Not that we can extend that observation too much: both CZ and C/V are notoriously indifferent to smooth blur in their designs.
