Jordan thanks for the effort, these tests are laborous to do.
Best overall rendition:
4, 2, 1, 3 and 5 & 6 are failures, the red is just so ugly
Best microcontrast
No texture on subject, very little from where to judge this. So no comments.
Best color
While photos were not having any colorspace attached to them I had to assume they are in sRGB and based on that 2, 4, 1, 3, 6, 5 (and assuming the model red is trying to be Ferrari's classic red)
Best bokeh
Image did have very little to estimate quality of bokeh, for me bokeh highlights are not important but transition from DOF to bokeh. Ring edges are smoothest on 3 (so if you like smooth bokeh then this), 2 looks pretty good on selected crop but on hood of green car it has the rings of aspherical element shown?. 4 looks OK as well. 5 and 6 are again horrible, 5 is shoot with shorter focal length and object sizes in bokeh are different due to that. As overall based on this sample which doesn't give much to judge the bokeh I pick 4, 3, 2, 1, 5, 6.
Best resolution
From the ferrari logo crop it seems 1, 2 and 4 have about same resolution (best), 3 is not far behind (detail seems to be there but there is not enough contrast to show it) and 5 & 6 have the least resolution.
Like Richard said #1 looks most 3D of these, but even that photo doesn't give me feeling of watching the model car, all seem very much just as flat photos. Maybe it's the lightning that kills the setup or then lenses you used were not macro lenses and suffer in this kind of close focus situation and cannot give their best.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Maybe it's the lightning that kills the setup or then lenses you used were not macro lenses and suffer in this kind of close focus situation and cannot give their best.
How do you know none of the lenses were macro lenses?
Best overall rendition: it's hard for me to judge the overall rendition.
Best microcontrast: 4 followed by 2 and then 1 (then 3, and last 5 and 6). Is it possible that 1 is sharpened more? Somehow from #1, I get more of a 2D feeling on the logo. #3 has a better 3D feeling on the logo, but it's also a bit pale.
Best color: are the tires black, because they look blueish in #5?
Best bokeh: 4, hands-down. OOF areas are rounded, not ovals or polygonal shaped.
Best resolution: 2, 1 and 4 are all very close.
Looking at these again from a LCD at work, I still like 2 and 4 the best. 4 might be my favorite if it wasn't the yellow/green hues in the shadows (tire). My guess is that 2 or 4 is the Oly 90/2 macro.
Ok, here's the reveal, and judging by all of your responses, there are going to be some quite shocked people. Having used these lenses a lot, I'm not surprised at all by the results, but you might. The only surprise for me is the low resolution on Lens 3, since in every day use, it is VERY sharp...not as sharp as 1, 2 and 4, but very sharp.
As one has already guessed, 5 and 6 are not on equal footing....they were shot on my E-P1, and were shot, not at f/4, but at f/2 to give the same DOF...this is somewhat fair because none of the other lenses were stopped down more than a stop, and both of those lenses were down one stop. The E-P1 white balance was off here, and I ended up using 'match color' in Photoshop to get it to match the others in general color rendition. Obviously, this negates the color aspect of the test for those two lenses, but it would make it basically unusable as part of the test, as people would immediately know which two lenses those were.
The results between 1-4 are very equal...same exposure, same aperture, same processing, same everything except the lens.
Lens #1 is the C/Y Zeiss 85mm f/2.8 Sonnar T* (at f/4)
Lens #2 is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (at 85mm, f/4...wide open)
Lens #3 is the C/Y Zeiss 28-85mm Vario-Sonnar f/3.3-4 T* (at 85mm, f/4..wide open)
Lens #4 is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro (at f/4)
Lens #5 is the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton (at f/2 on the E-P1)
Lens #6 is the Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 (at f/2 on the E-P1).
Jman13 wrote:
Ok, here's the reveal, and judging by all of your responses, there are going to be some quite shocked people.
I'm not shocked at all. Both Canons are excellent. I haven't had any experience with the two C/Y Zeiss.
Would have been very interesting to have EF 85L 1.2, ZE 85/1.4, ZE Makro 100/2.0, EF 90mm 2.8 TS, Leica 90mm summicron and Leica 100mm Elmarit into the mix. I believe that currently these are some of the best alternatives at 85-100mm.
I would love to test those lenses...if someone would like to loan them to me, I would be happy to test them against my lenses. I do have the Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar in C/Y mount, and in previous testing, I have determined that it is essentially equal to the 85/2.8 at f/4 in pretty much every way.
I have previously owned the EF 85/1.2, and in my estimation, at f/2.8 and f/4, the 100L macro is the superior lens (though that's splitting hairs). Of course, the 85L is wonderful at wider apertures.
What this demonstrates is just how good that f/4 70-200 IS zoom is, considering it's a zoom, it's shot wide open and it's not even a macro (competing with the Canon 100 macro, which is no easy feat).
However, I agree with trajan, that some of the lenses he mentions will leave the others in the dust if done properly, maybe adding the Zeiss Makro N 100, and some are in the ball park price of the 70-200 IS (used Leica 100 APO is in that range, which I suspect would top them all in that price range, the ZE 100 being quite a bit more money).
I'm surprised how rounded the blur on the EF 100L Macro IS is. The lens is stopped down and yet, it's as round as the wide open lenses. Moreover, the blur is actually round (not slightly oval). Good job, Canon.
I am quite skeptical of any lens leaving the two Canons 'in the dust' as you say. I have no doubt that there are some lenses that might be superior, but in the 50 lenses I've owned, nothing has come close to leaving these lenses in the dust. Any improvement is incremental. I have no doubt that some Leica lenses may have better color, maybe a bit more lifelike looks, perhaps even a bit higher resolution (though I think the 100L is pretty much at the resolution limits of the 1Ds II sensor)...but I have yet to see anything from any lens that would be an extremely large difference. A little better, sure, I'm sure there are a little better lenses...but a huge difference? Not buying it.
The reason? The top lenses I've used (The Zeiss 85 Sonnar and 85 Planar are in there, Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar, canon 85L, 135L, 100L and 70-200 f/4L IS, Rokkor 58, Sigma 150 macro, etc)...all of them are pretty darn close in peak image quality. There are differences in rendering, sure, and there are certainly other small differences, but they are all really good lenses. None of them are MUCH better than the other.
?. 4 looks OK as well. 5 and 6 are again horrible, 5 is shoot with shorter focal length and object sizes in bokeh are different due to that. As overall based on this sample which doesn't give much to judge the bokeh I pick 4, 3, 2, 1, 5, 6.