This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201150ish shootout
p.2 #150ish shootout
douglasf13 wrote:
Me too, although probably just to try to make myself feel better, since this is the lens I'm using. 
I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.
Now you have some proof, if only in one situation, why Contax G users considered the G 35/2 to be a disappointment, as I've reported on a couple of occasions. It just didn't measure up to the spectacular G 45/2 that we were all used to using. Certainly not bad, just a let down as it did not meet expectations.
sebboh wrote
...i'm curious to see if the contax 35 will perform better near infinity. I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.Now you have some proof, if only in one situation, why Contax G users considered the G 35/2 to be a disappointment, as I've reported on a couple of occasions. It just didn't measure up to the spectacular G 45/2 that we were all used to using. Certainly not bad, just a let down as it did not meet expectations.
Feb 03, 2011 at 07:40 PM
p.2 #250ish shootout
Thank you for your work!
The old Nikkor does seem to have a problem, maybe that should have been omitted from the comparison.... I've compared it to a late 60/early 70 F 50/1.4 and found that the difference wasn't very big until you let harsh light hit the front lens. The counter-light properties of the oldest lenses really suck... :-/
(I did find the Pre-AI 50 to be worse than my AIS50/1.4 though).
That the planar 45 is good didn't exactly count as "news", but nice to see it in a straght-up comparison! As most of the other lenses it actually gets sharper @ full aperture if you increase the test distance to 5-10m+...
The old Nikkor does seem to have a problem, maybe that should have been omitted from the comparison.... I've compared it to a late 60/early 70 F 50/1.4 and found that the difference wasn't very big until you let harsh light hit the front lens. The counter-light properties of the oldest lenses really suck... :-/
(I did find the Pre-AI 50 to be worse than my AIS50/1.4 though).
That the planar 45 is good didn't exactly count as "news", but nice to see it in a straght-up comparison! As most of the other lenses it actually gets sharper @ full aperture if you increase the test distance to 5-10m+...
Feb 03, 2011 at 07:43 PM
p.2 #350ish shootout
Wow, you put some effort into that, thanks for your time!
Feb 03, 2011 at 07:43 PM
p.2 #450ish shootout
About the FF lenses not performing as expected; I did a similar 50mm shootout the other day, but on the smaller µ4/3 sensor as used in the Panasonic G1. Checking the borders of all the lenses, 5 or 6 of them, the modern Sigma 50/1.4 was the best one.
Some of your images looked better than some of mine and I wondered why until I noticed you used a Nex camera. The stack of glass elements in front of the sensor seem to cause troubles for many lenses when used with µ4/3 cameras.
Some of the lenses I tried performed better in the "distant resolution" test than in the "short distance" test.
Nice test! I have owned some of these lenses and I think your results matches what I am, or was, used to get as well.
/Jonas
Some of your images looked better than some of mine and I wondered why until I noticed you used a Nex camera. The stack of glass elements in front of the sensor seem to cause troubles for many lenses when used with µ4/3 cameras.
Some of the lenses I tried performed better in the "distant resolution" test than in the "short distance" test.
Nice test! I have owned some of these lenses and I think your results matches what I am, or was, used to get as well.
/Jonas
Feb 03, 2011 at 08:20 PM
p.2 #550ish shootout
Lotusm50 wrote:
Me too, although probably just to try to make myself feel better, since this is the lens I'm using. I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.Now you have some proof, if only in one situation, why Contax G users considered the G 35/2 to be a disappointment, as I've reported on a couple of occasions. It just didn't measure up to the spectacular G 45/2 that we were all used to using. Certainly not bad, just a let down as it did not meet expectations.
Yeah, I certainly didn't think the Contax G 35 stacked up to the 45, since I've never heard anything other than the 45 being just about perfect, and I've certainly heard disappointment in the 35 all over the web.
For me, it's a matter of balancing different elements. I want a 50mm equiv, so the Contax G 45 is out. I've not been a fan of the PEN lens bokeh. I've got the Nokton 35/1.4, and it isn't nearly as sharp as the G 35, especially at the edges, and it has all kinds of other issues. The Nokton 35/1.2 is too big. My MS Optical 35/3.5 seems pretty good, but it is slow. I would've picked the ZM 35, but I wish it had a longer mfd. So, I've still settled on the Contax G 35 on NEX...for now.
douglasf13 wrote
sebboh wrote
...i'm curious to see if the contax 35 will perform better near infinity. I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.Yeah, I certainly didn't think the Contax G 35 stacked up to the 45, since I've never heard anything other than the 45 being just about perfect, and I've certainly heard disappointment in the 35 all over the web.
For me, it's a matter of balancing different elements. I want a 50mm equiv, so the Contax G 45 is out. I've not been a fan of the PEN lens bokeh. I've got the Nokton 35/1.4, and it isn't nearly as sharp as the G 35, especially at the edges, and it has all kinds of other issues. The Nokton 35/1.2 is too big. My MS Optical 35/3.5 seems pretty good, but it is slow. I would've picked the ZM 35, but I wish it had a longer mfd. So, I've still settled on the Contax G 35 on NEX...for now.
Feb 03, 2011 at 09:09 PM
p.2 #650ish shootout
thanks trdonja and corndog.
kakomu - i have actually never really noticed the canons CA in practice. it is my main landscape lens and i've never even felt the need to add a little CA correction to it in lightroom. i've shot many fewer landscapes with the pen f 42mm and noticed it's CA nearly every time. so i'm wondering if it is only the extreme corners that show it that strongly with the canon. as far as loCA goes it's there but it is better than most other fast 50s i've used.
thesuede - i included the nikkor in the test mostly because i was curious if there was something wrong with it other than the extreme low contrast. i probably should have put a stronger disclaimer on it though. in your experience with the lens were the corners actually pretty good?
jonas - from everything i've heard that sigma beats every 50/1.4 in the corners except for the summilux asph. i will also say that most of these lenses do perform better at longer distances (i just can't do as well controlled a test to demonstrate it).
douglas - the contax 35 improves with distance, though i can't say for sure how much, and it looks much better if your not a pixel peeper due to it's zeissy contrast.
kakomu - i have actually never really noticed the canons CA in practice. it is my main landscape lens and i've never even felt the need to add a little CA correction to it in lightroom. i've shot many fewer landscapes with the pen f 42mm and noticed it's CA nearly every time. so i'm wondering if it is only the extreme corners that show it that strongly with the canon. as far as loCA goes it's there but it is better than most other fast 50s i've used.
thesuede - i included the nikkor in the test mostly because i was curious if there was something wrong with it other than the extreme low contrast. i probably should have put a stronger disclaimer on it though. in your experience with the lens were the corners actually pretty good?
jonas - from everything i've heard that sigma beats every 50/1.4 in the corners except for the summilux asph. i will also say that most of these lenses do perform better at longer distances (i just can't do as well controlled a test to demonstrate it).
douglas - the contax 35 improves with distance, though i can't say for sure how much, and it looks much better if your not a pixel peeper due to it's zeissy contrast.
Feb 03, 2011 at 10:40 PM