Jman13 wrote:
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.
Jman13 wrote:
but a huge difference? Not buying it.
I agree that you'll not find a huge difference.
One difference you may find is when testing these lenses for landscape shooting (at infinity, corner to corner, at f/8-11) For example, I love my EF 35L 1.4, but I've found the hard way that it really falls short in really extreme corner sharpness. I'm still going to keep it, and the 35L is probably my most used lens so far.
It'd be nice, if you have the time, to have the same test at infinity at f/8, corner to corner. #5 and #6 might surprise you and catch up, especially since they don't have to be stopped down less to simulate the same DOF
It won't leave very good to superior lenses in the dust in the center region, but if you look at various competent reviews (16:9 provides clear examples for instance), superior lenses are superior for a reason, only it is at the margin (both physically and abstractly). And of course, "leave in the dust" has a different meaning at this level. A gold medal slalom skier leaves the rest of the pack "in the dust" by beating them by over a second in time, but is that "leaving them in the dust"? Well yes, at that level it would be.
For one thing, the 100 Leica is very sharp wide open at f/2.8 (as well as at f/22 as was recently demonstrated, not an ease thing to do), and of course, this competition wouldn't even take that into account. I will agree that as you get closer to the f/5.6 to f/8 region, the differences become very, very small amongst the highly rated lenses, and there is no better example than the $300-350 Contax 28mm f/2.8. I know of few lenses that could top that lens at f/5.6 at 2-4X the price. The thing that separates the Leica apart is it is excellent across all uses, all f stops, all distances, etc., measured in resolution, bokeh, color, microcontrast, CA, yada, yada. It's not easy to find a lens that hits the top mark so broadly speaking (the 70-200 does beat it out for versatility of focal length, though, not to mention IS).
If you want to stitch panos, you need sharpness across the whole image, with low distortion as well.
Jman13 wrote:
Ok, here's the reveal, and judging by all of your responses, there are going to be some quite shocked people.
No shock here, old non-floating element designs used on close-up situation against modern floating element designs. One of the most important things regarding gear is to know limitations of your equipment and to select best available gear for each situation. Of the alt lenses you tested I'm only familiar with Sonnar 2.8/85, and based on my sample it's not suitable for close-up shooting if high quality is required.
Well, in my experience with these lenses, focus at infinity mirrors this test almost exactly, with the exception of the 28-85, which does perform a little better once it gets about two feet outside of MFD (resolution is similar, but contrast increases noticeably. It's still not as sharp as the 70-200 or the 100L, but closer, though contrast is very similar).
erichard wrote:
It won't leave very good to superior lenses in the dust in the center region, but if you look at various competent reviews (16:9 provides clear examples for instance), superior lenses are superior for a reason, only it is at the margin (both physically and abstractly). And of course, "leave in the dust" has a different meaning at this level. A gold medal slalom skier leaves the rest of the pack "in the dust" by beating them by over a second in time, but is that "leaving them in the dust"? Well yes, at that level it would be.
That's fair.
For one thing, the 100 Leica is very sharp wide open at f/2.8 (as well as at f/22 as was recently demonstrated, not an ease thing to do), and of course, this competition wouldn't even take that into account.
I'd love to try both the 100 Leica and the zeiss 100 MP (and the 100/2). I will say that both of my Canon lenses are sharp to the corners wide open. The 100L's corners aren't quite as sharp as its center, but still quite good. The Leica or zeiss might best it there. These shots, of course, aren't at the image center, but about 50% of the way to the edge, but it's good. I'd also love to try the Voigtlander 125 SL.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
No shock here, old non-floating element designs used on close-up situation against modern floating element designs. One of the most important things regarding gear is to know limitations of your equipment and to select best available gear for each situation. Of the alt lenses you tested I'm only familiar with Sonnar 2.8/85, and based on my sample it's not suitable for close-up shooting if high quality is required.
My experience in some portrait work with the 85/2.8 Sonnar is that its minimum
focus distance is greater than I would like, but that even near MFD its rendering
is superb -- comparable sharpness to macro lenses. But of course, portrait work
is not quite as demanding on resolution as some other applications.
The Canon zoom and macro are very impressive here.
Good work, Jordan.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Of the alt lenses you tested I'm only familiar with Sonnar 2.8/85, and based on my sample it's not suitable for close-up shooting if high quality is required.
I won't say anything about this test, but the Sonnars 2.8/85, 3.5/100, and 2.8/135 perform admirably well on tubes.
Feb 28, 2010 at 05:56 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Thanks for the test. I really appreciate it and think you did a great job. I had the 70-200 f/4L IS and it was a good lens in many respects, but I never thought much of the bokeh or the colors (and interestingly I felt the same in your test even though I didn't know which lens was which). That seems to just be my taste, however, as many others seemed to like the bokeh of the lens and those who commented on color liked it too. These are of course very subjective impressions, but for me I see both Canon lenses as having great resolution, low CA, decent micro-contrast, but I still don't like the overall rendering because the colors, bokeh (which has too steep of transitions, onion like structure in the rings, and bright edge highlighting, IMO), and a look that to me seems a bit flat, YMMV, however. For me even a moderately priced lens like my Leica 90 summicron (non-AA), or my Rokkor 58 f/1.2 produces better colors and bokeh and for me a look I like better. Still it is interesting see that most people don't share my preferences in a blind situation. Thanks again for the test.
Toothwalker wrote:
I won't say anything about this test, but the Sonnars 2.8/85, 3.5/100, and 2.8/135 perform admirably well on tubes.
My sample lost the 3D/pasticity/what-ever-term-is-approved-to-be-used-by-forum-definition-people and presense (meaning feeling of looking real thing, not a flat photo) when shooting close-ups, even just using the MFD. This is for me the most important quality in any lens I use. For example S-Planar doesn't loose these qualities when shooting close-ups and makros. I assumed it's because it does not perform well at close-up distance. Thou I have experience of only one sample, but I doubt it was due to sample variance since the lens was performing very well at long distances. Does your lens have similar rendering with tubes as it does without?
Thanks for the test. I really appreciate it and think you did a great job. I had the 70-200 f/4L IS and it was a good lens in many respects, but I never thought much of the bokeh or the colors (and interestingly I felt the same in your test even though I didn't know which lens was which). That seems to just be my taste, however, as many others seemed to like the bokeh of the lens and those who commented on color liked it too. These are of course very subjective impressions, but for me I see both Canon lenses as having great resolution, low CA, decent micro-contrast, but I still don't like the overall rendering because the colors, bokeh (which has too steep of transitions, onion like structure in the rings, and bright edge highlighting, IMO), and a look that to me seems a bit flat, YMMV, however. For me even a moderately priced lens like my Leica 90 summicron (non-AA), or my Rokkor 58 f/1.2 produces better colors and bokeh and for me a look I like better. Still it is interesting see that most people don't share my preferences in a blind situation. Thanks again for the test....Show more →
Thanks. I find it very interesting to find personal preference. I for one never really cared for the Rokkor 58/1.2. It was a very fine lens, no doubt, and it was very good, but I prefer my Sigma 50 f/1.4 to it by a good margin.
trajan wrote:
It'd be nice, if you have the time, to have the same test at infinity at f/8, corner to corner. #5 and #6 might surprise you and catch up, especially since they don't have to be stopped down less to simulate the same DOF
--trajan
But, there is rarely a lens comparison test done at minimum focus distance, the true test of a lens performance, IMO. A great comparison.
The one thing that keeps me from buying the C/Y 85/1.4 lens, is its MFD performance.
As far as the Ferrari is concerned, I'm thinking the 250 LM.
trajan wrote:
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.
--trajan
Well it has 9 rounded iris blades. So that's expected. None the less, it certainly is a damn good lens!
I want one. Too bad it can't be had for around $200.
