Guy: I didn't mean that other lenses are no good. All modern Leica lenses are superb and I have several myself. What I meant to say is it's just that much easier to produce a good tele than a good WA. Just look at the MTFs.
son, to me, the proof is in the pudding. how about some real-life portrait examples to go along with your excellent test results?
thanks for sharing your results with the forum. please don't take this the wrong way - but i'm a believer in the photograph, and in the printed result. so, how about it?
But I think it would be nice, as Andy pointed out, if you could post some
real world picture samples.Don't mention the lens name.Just ask people to pick the best picture. How about that
Pham Minh Son wrote:
Robert,
I have not get the chance to test the Zuiko 90mm F2.0 but from other experience is that it is not a stellar lens. I also based this information with my own experience since Zuiko lens only made a few that has rare earth element for their optics and the 90mm F2.0 and the 180mm F2.0 and based on my testing of the supposed claimed best Zuiko 180mm F2.0 where the Leica was supposed to copy from is not as sharp as the Leica. Here is the results from that studies. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/232595/0#1910952
Thus my own conclusion is that the Zuiko 90mm F2.0 is not going to be a spectacular lens. Sorry to Zuiko fan here.
While I haven't had the opportunity to compare the Zuiko 90mm F2.0 Macro against the the Zeiss 85mm 1.2 or the Leica Apo-Summicron-R 90mm F2.0, I can tell you that the Zuiko 90mm (at least, my copy) is easily in the same class as the Canon 85mm 1.2. In fact, the Zuiko 90mm may actually surpass the Canon at some apertures in sharpness. However, I haven't done an exacting test such as you have so wonderfully done here, so I can't say for certain.
I can also tell you that at least one other FM member, Butch Welch (aka, Handcoater) shares my views on this lens. Unlike myself, he did have a chance to compare it to a couple of Leica lenses. Granted, he wasn't doing the exacting testing that you have done, but never the less at the end of the day he chose the Zuiko: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/233408/0#1918744
While I feel fairly certain the Zeiss 85mm 1.2 would still rate higher on your test, I do wonder how the Zuiko would actually measure. If you are at all interested, we could discuss lending you my copy for awhile.
What ever the case, you've certainly done some extrordianarily detailed work here Son. You've once again made a wonderful contribution to the forum.
OK, since I have two of these lenses (Canon and Contax), I performed a comparison that may show the visual differences. In my opinion, Son is correct and you can actually see the visual differences in micro-detail. I already thought both of these lenses were extremely sharp, but when compared side-by-side, the Contax appears to come out ahead.
I tested using as close of a method as Son describes (10 feet distance, mirror lock-up, heavy tripod, split-screen focusing, even flash illumination, etc. on a 1DsII), and took seven shots each to carefully bracket any manual focusing errors.
While this is not as scientific as Son's tests, I can confrim that there is a visual difference that is consistent with those conclusions.
I have pasted 100% crops from the center, with Canon on the left and Contax on the right.
Son,
Bravo ! This should be the new standard for testing the and reporting the lens performance - Controlled and Reproducible procedure and Measurable quantities !
Kudos to you.
David, thanks for the post as I also have observed the differences in these lens especially the micro detail of the Zeiss Planar 85mm F1.2. Furthermore, what I find extraordinary about the achievement of optics in this Zeiss 85mm F1.2 is that at F1.2 it is very difficult to achieve tack sharp images. This is a great achievement by Zeiss optics. I also believe that as the density of the digital sensor increases the separation will also widen the gap. We must recognize one thing and that is to beat a strong performers like the Canon EF 85mm F1.2L and the Leica Apo-Summicron-R 90mm F2.0 is very difficult. Thus achievement of the Zeiss Planar 85mm F1.2 is very unique and I fully recognize Zeiss legendary optics at its best. As great as these lens are we must still recognize the weak link such as printing techlogy and digital sensor to equivalate these lens resolving capability.
Dean, I would love to have another oportunity to test another Zuiko lens out. However, I still believe that the Zuiko lens will not be in the same class for two reasons: 1) the Zuiko lens does not contain an aspherical element and 2) the lens does not have floating element to compensate the lens resolving power. I will send you a PM later.
Robert and Dean, I also think it is not going to be a fair test for the Zuiko 90mm F2.0 Macro lens. Since the test is about 10 feet away and most macro lens shine at close up distance. The one lens that does a good job at furtherway distance is the Leica 100mm F2.8. However, it is only a 1:2 size. Thus, I further believe it is not fair for the Zuiko lens here.
tchotchke, the FD flange distance is 42mm while the EF is 44 thus no adapter was able to use to test it against these three lens here with the 1Ds Mark II. I am sure it is a very good lens.
Pham Minh Son wrote:
tchotchke, the FD flange distance is 42mm while the EF is 44 thus no adapter was able to use to test it against these three lens here with the 1Ds Mark II. I am sure it is a very good lens.
-Son
Does this mean that it cannot be used on any of the new canon EF bodies? Also does this mean that none of the FD lenses can be adapted? Would there be a (cheaper than these 3) nikon lens that would be similar?
tchotchke,
There is one way to adapt it and I am planing to do it when I get the chance. The only way to do it is to shave off at least 2mm on the rear mount and put in a new EF bayonet and you will get to infinity. But I also need to know if it will interfer with the mirror. I might also need to modify the mirror as well.
sapro wrote:
135/2.8 is Sonnar, but 135/2 is Planar.
What is better?
Contrast, color, accutance, uniformity, distortion, bokeh, which bokeh, line brightness, double line etc?
I am concerned that data is presented on portrait lenses without any portraits
Why can't you guys who pretty well put yourself out as experts whose experience matters, also post portraits?
Otherwise, how do we add up all the factors to some meaning?
For all we know you may be just using a 10D and have no portfolio to really demonstrate real experience that we can learn from.
I am not discounting physical specs or visual impressions of brick walls or charts.
But are we just buying specs or do we want to shoot real pictures? So please always post portraits to bolster any claims, especially if one also happens to be selling similar lenses.
