BTW, anyone who doesn't already know may be interested to know that, on top of the seemingly very scientific testing that Arianne's group plans to perform, a small group of Torontonians are planning a more "artistic" test of most of these lenses. We'll be looking particularly at bokeh (of course), colour, tonality, contrast, and overall "signature." No solid plan yet, but I'd like to aim for the peak of the cherry blossoms in High Park.
Both lenses are wide open here (it's very difficult to persuade the Minolta to shoot at f1.4, and impossible for the Zeiss 50 to do f1.2!), but it's striking how different the presentation is: the Zeiss transitions very abruptly into defocus, but resolves extremely well at the focal plane, whereas the Minolta doesn't resolve well at the outer edge of Zone B, but needless to say, the longer focal length and wider aperture combine to give the Minolta capture radically smoother bokeh. Elsewhere in the frame, the Planar 50 has busy bokeh where the Minolta just renders a creamy abstract mush. Samples at 100% (actual pixels).
On the picture evidence alone, you might not guess that the Minolta shot (right) was at a wider aperture than the Zeiss shot (left).
cogitech wrote:
BTW, anyone who doesn't already know may be interested to know that, on top of the seemingly very scientific testing that Arianne's group plans to perform, a small group of Torontonians are planning a more "artistic" test of most of these lenses. We'll be looking particularly at bokeh (of course), colour, tonality, contrast, and overall "signature." No solid plan yet, but I'd like to aim for the peak of the cherry blossoms in High Park.
And at 16:9 we'll be performing a Canon swansong comparing similar lenses next month . . . .
Her eyes are solid brown (almost black) but I think the eyelashes, skin texture, and hat fabric tell the story.
The focus was not on the eye. I have found that the details of the iris of the eye are too fine for some lenses or systems focus accuracy or the Canons filter this detail out thinking it was noise.
I tried not to look but this has erupted my bokeh lust once again lol.
Arianne that's a very profound idea of testing what should be called the most exotic group of standard 35mm lenses. If you don't mind asking if you manage to get a hold of a Zeiss 55/1.2 why is the absence of a Leica Noctilux or a Nikkor Noct 58/1.2?
Mark, thank you for the test shots and they look exactly as expected, truly what a Planar would do with its focus and defocus characteristics. But considering the Minolta is half a stop faster I think that's pretty impressive, and people who hunt for one of those are after bokeh signature rather than sharpness anyway.
Now why does my Rokkor that took me ages to find at a reasonable price get stuck at Manchester Customs office Gosh it's been over 3 weeks and I can't wait to receive it.
PS: In Paul's shot of the girl, isn't it obvious the focus is on the rim of her hat? So front of her eyes, if it was placed correctly, I believe the eyes would have much more details.
Edited by Leon Noel on Apr 04, 2008 at 06:27 PM GMT
robsteve wrote:
The focus was not on the eye. I have found that the details of the iris of the eye are too fine for some lenses or systems focus accuracy or the Canons filter this detail out thinking it was noise.
Sorry, maybe you misread me. She doesn't have any iris detail.
My dog and cat, however, do. I'll try to find time to shoot something this weekend, as I have little doubt that the Rokkor can best the sample you referenced.
I have to agree with the chart from the magazine. I have done wide open shot comparison between the Rokkor-X 58/1.2 and SMC 50/1.2. The SMC 50/1.2 is definitely sharper at wide open.
The Rokkor has the best bokeh in the 50mm lens
Edited by s23chang on Apr 04, 2008 at 11:28 PM GMT
Edited by s23chang on Apr 04, 2008 at 11:30 PM GMT
Leon Noel wrote:
But considering the Minolta is half a stop faster I think that's pretty impressive, and people who hunt for one of those are after bokeh signature rather than sharpness anyway.
As I have demonstrated so many times already, a proper sample of the Rokkor offers both.
s23chang wrote:
I have to agree with the chart from the magazine. I have done wide open shot comparison between the Rokkor-X 58/1.2 and SMC 50/1.2. The SMC 50/1.2 is definitely sharper at wide open.
Leon Noel wrote:
PS: In Paul's shot of the girl, isn't it obvious the focus is on the rim of her hat? So front of her eyes, if it was placed correctly, I believe the eyes would have much more details.
Edited by Leon Noel on Apr 04, 2008 at 06:27 PM GMT
I think it is obvious that the focal plane goes through the rim of her hat, down onto her eye and eyelashes, and even her cheek. Look at the detail where her lower eyelid touches her eyeball and the fine wrinkles in her skin. The eye is in focus, but it is nearly black. (She's half Japanese, after all).
Gosh it's been over 3 weeks and I can't wait to receive it. 
