Raid's 35/40mm flare test: Analysis

[raid]

Originally Posted by Bosk

Thankyou very much Raid for conducting these tests which have no doubt required quite a bit of hard work on your part.


I'm surprised at how well the CV lenses performed, and how poorly the older Leicas did.
In particular the sharpness of the CV 35 Ultron wide-open was much better than the things I'd heard about it lead me to imagine. I was also pleased (but not surprised) at the performance of the PII which has always delighted me, for price it is simply incredible.

I am pretty shocked at how little difference there seems to be between most of the modern lenses in the test, though I do think that under more "real world conditions" differences would reveal themselves over time. I've always found it hard to determine how I feel about a lens after a single outing, but protracted use usually tells a story once you've shot it under a variety of conditions.
No offense to Raid who I think has done a brilliant job, I'm merely musing over the fact that tests can only hope to tell us so much.
One thing the test does tell me is that the difference between B&W films can be much greater than the difference between various lenses, and I'm now more keen than ever to experiment with new films rather than daydream about owning new lenses - definately a good thing!

Hi Bosk,

The testing is not done yet; yesterday and today I shot one roll per lens for four lenses, for images under all type of conditions. If I had the money to dvelop and scan many rolls of film, I would have done this for each lens. With 27 lenses [and 27 36-exp rolls], the total cost would be over $400 [plus the cost of the 27 rolls of film]. One of the best benfits of such tests is maybe to get a useful conversation started here.

Cheers,

Raid

[raid]

Hi,

I need a volunteer to develop and scan two rolls of EFKE 25 B&W film for the lens testing efforts here. Is anyone willing to do this task? If so, please pm me. Thanks.


Greetings,

Raid

[raid]

Ravinder has volunteered to do the developing and scanning. Thanks!

Raid

[visiondr]

Raid, Roland

Thank you for all your work. These tests are very valuable. I'm about to purchase a 35mm and this series has been helpful.

[raid]

This is good to know, Ron. Which 35mm lens are you considering?

Raid

[raid]

If anyone has experience with developing EFKE 25 film, this would be a plus.

Raid

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by jan normandale

Roland and Raid.. hurculean effort of work and analysis!

What I find interesting here is how everyone looks for a 'winner' so to speak. What I'm getting here is solid information on how to use a specific lens to achieve a certain effect. All seem to have some unique character worth exploiting in photography.

Just what I was thinking.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by raid

Hi Bosk,

The testing is not done yet; yesterday and today I shot one roll per lens for four lenses, for images under all type of conditions. If I had the money to dvelop and scan many rolls of film, I would have done this for each lens. With 27 lenses [and 27 36-exp rolls], the total cost would be over $400 [plus the cost of the 27 rolls of film]. One of the best benfits of such tests is maybe to get a useful conversation started here.

Cheers,

Raid

Which 4 lenses, Raid?

[raid]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Which 4 lenses, Raid?

Yesterday I was trying to out [a Canon 35/2] to rest the questions about the performance of the Canon 35/2 that came out below par in my few images so far. I also gave the "new champion" lens, the Canon 50/1.5, a field test with another roll of film. Today, I put the two "giants" one against the other. I used a roll for the Leica Summilux and a roll for the CV 35mm/1.2 ... the Beast.


Raid

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by raid

Yesterday I was trying to out to rest the questions about the performance of the Canon 35/2 that came out below par in my few images so far. I also gave the "new champion" lens, the Canon 50/1.5, a field test with another roll of film. Today, I put the two "giants" one against the other. I use a roll for the Leica Summilux and a roll for the CV 35mm/1.2 ... the Beast.


Raid

Thanks for the info . . . as well as for all the work you did on this amazing test. If no one has mentioned it, your daughter is lovely & the colors in the protrait suited are particularly well. Overall, it was a beautiful composition.

[visiondr]

I think I'm going for the Zeiss Biogon ZM. My only other lens is a 50mm Elmar-M and the extra stop will be very useful. I've owned at Zeiss Biogon 25mmm (just a bit too wide for me at this time) and I found it was nearly "flare proof". I've shot into insanely glaring situations and the lens really mitigated the bouncing around of all that extraneous light.

The only significant criticism I've heard of this lens is its size. But really, the entire 35mm framelines are visible with the lens. The size is a red herring to me.

Originally Posted by raid

This is good to know, Ron. Which 35mm lens are you considering?

Raid

[back alley]

the zm 35/2 is a very nice lens, handles like a dream and sharp.
i think you will be very pleased.

[Abbazz]

Originally Posted by raid

If anyone has experience with developing EFKE 25 film, this would be a plus.

Raid,

Thanks for the tests, the results published on Roland's site are unbelievably useful. Your test pattern is great.

I have been souping Ekfe 25 in Diafine at nominal sensitivity (25 ISO) for years with very good results. Just make sure you use a hardening fixer as the emulsion on this film is very soft so it gets damaged quite easily. I use Kodak Hardening fixer because it comes in powder and it's easier to have is shipped to my end of the world.

Cheers,

Abbazz

[raid]

Originally Posted by Abbazz

Raid,

Thanks for the tests, the results published on Roland's site are unbelievably useful. Your test pattern is great.

I have been souping Ekfe 25 in Diafine at nominal sensitivity (25 ISO) for years with very good results. Just make sure you use a hardening fixer as the emulsion on this film is very soft so it gets damaged quite easily. I use Kodak Hardening fixer because it comes in powder and it's easier to have is shipped to my end of the world.

Cheers,

Abbazz

Thank you Abbazz. I forwarded your tip to the person who volunteered to do the developing.

Raid

[raid]

Originally Posted by back alley

the zm 35/2 is a very nice lens, handles like a dream and sharp.
i think you will be very pleased.

Hi Joe,

Could you look into making the lens tests a sticky ?

Raid

[raid]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Thanks for the info . . . as well as for all the work you did on this amazing test. If no one has mentioned it, your daughter is lovely & the colors in the protrait suited are particularly well. Overall, it was a beautiful composition.

Thanks. I take test images with the hope to also get nice photos out of them.

Raid

[colinh]

It might be an idea to use the same roll of film for several lenses - to avoid inconsistencies in film, developing and scanning...



colin

[raid]

Colin:I usually use the same color film and the same B&W film, but here, I added field tests with "real"B&W film and not XP2 for those RF members who insist on such type of film.

Raid

[sparrow6224]

My first reaction to the images was wow, WTF, the Canon 35/1.5??? That lens has had very mixed reviews as someone else pointed out, but your sample at least is stellar. You can see its not terribly flare resistant to put it mildly by the lightbulb crops but in all the other images it does fine.

My reactions generally are much much more guided by the sharpness / flare comparisons than the bokeh. Bokeh is very nice but doesn't on the whole interest me a whole lot and it has to be very bad -- mythic bad -- for me to hold it against a lens.

The Summilux is of course the best of the lot. And why wou'dn't it be.

But, for other surprises: I thought the CV 35/2.5's, both of them, looked as good as the Summaron 2.8 or close to it, and one hears such raves about that lens. The CV Ulton 35/1.7 looked excellent as well. I had -- until an unfortunate incident in a taxi -- the Summicron 40 and know how good it is so I'm not surprised to see it outperforming what are thought to be its betters. I, unlike some here, was not impressed with the Nokton 40s in any of the comparisons.

And, no has said a word, but the highly thought of Biogon 35/2 didn't do very well, I thought -- though it's clearly excellent on the flare issue.

So the big winners to my eyes were, first, the Canon 35/1.5, next the three CV's in no particular order, and the Rokkor/Summicron 40s. Disappointing were the 35 Biogon and, to me, the Noktons. The Canon 35/1.8, the Summaron 35/2.8, and the 35 Summicrons were kind of 'as expected' or not quite as good as expected, but only by a hair.

[PCStudio]

Entire test is wrong . Underexposed film under Tungsten Lighting was wrong processed ...
************
About lens resolution - there is a thick book u gotta read before u do that damn test .

[Bluedog2212]

I must say the work involved makes me tire thinking about it.
As most of my work has been large format, the issues with 35mm are quite different, even different from MF.

That said, the quality of the photograph in this amount of detail in the eye of a judge will not be noticed, IMHO. It will only be judged by fellow photographers. If we are wanting to get our work published or shown, I don't think the differences here are
significant.
Short version: the photo is the objective, not the gear.

[efix]

This is an awesome test you guys did there, kudos and a big thank you!

Finally, there is a comparison of the Nokton 40/1.4 MC and SC versions that shows actual differences in rendering! Also -- I knew it, but it's fascinating to see in an actual comparison -- the 35 Biogon is one contrasty lens!

These pictures have convinced me that the 40 Nokton MC is the way to go if I decide to add a fast 50 (eq.) to my M-lens repertoire (using an M8).

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by efix

These pictures have convinced me that the 40 Nokton MC is the way to go if I decide to add a fast 50 (eq.) to my M-lens repertoire (using an M8).

I would think of it as a 35mm and not a 50.

[efix]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I would think of it as a 35mm and not a 50.

As stated, I'd be using it on an M8, where it would be ~ 53mm-equivalent. Used on film or an M9, I guess it's up to debate whether a 40 is close to a 35 or a 50 :-) (I've actually read both claims!)

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

My first reaction to the images was wow, WTF, the Canon 35/1.5??? That lens has had very mixed reviews as someone else pointed out, but your sample at least is stellar. You can see its not terribly flare resistant to put it mildly by the lightbulb crops but in all the other images it does fine.

My reactions generally are much much more guided by the sharpness / flare comparisons than the bokeh. Bokeh is very nice but doesn't on the whole interest me a whole lot and it has to be very bad -- mythic bad -- for me to hold it against a lens.

The Summilux is of course the best of the lot. And why wou'dn't it be.

But, for other surprises: I thought the CV 35/2.5's, both of them, looked as good as the Summaron 2.8 or close to it, and one hears such raves about that lens. The CV Ulton 35/1.7 looked excellent as well. I had -- until an unfortunate incident in a taxi -- the Summicron 40 and know how good it is so I'm not surprised to see it outperforming what are thought to be its betters. I, unlike some here, was not impressed with the Nokton 40s in any of the comparisons.

And, no has said a word, but the highly thought of Biogon 35/2 didn't do very well, I thought -- though it's clearly excellent on the flare issue.

So the big winners to my eyes were, first, the Canon 35/1.5, next the three CV's in no particular order, and the Rokkor/Summicron 40s. Disappointing were the 35 Biogon and, to me, the Noktons. The Canon 35/1.8, the Summaron 35/2.8, and the 35 Summicrons were kind of 'as expected' or not quite as good as expected, but only by a hair.

Hi Vince

just to share, about the 35 1.5:
I had one. it was impressive in terms of sharpness, but it could flare like mad. I mean huge white half moon shapes across the entire frame.
That, the handling, and the minimum focus of 1m, made me sell it.