visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
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.
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.
raid said:
back alley
IMAGES
the zm 35/2 is a very nice lens, handles like a dream and sharp.
i think you will be very pleased.
i think you will be very pleased.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
raid said:
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
Dad Photographer
Abbazz said:
Thank you Abbazz. I forwarded your tip to the person who volunteered to do the developing.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
back alley said:
Hi Joe,
Could you look into making the lens tests a sticky ?
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
Huck Finn said: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
Well-known
It might be an idea to use the same roll of film for several lenses - to avoid inconsistencies in film, developing and scanning...
:angel:
colin
:angel:
colin
raid
Dad Photographer
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
Raid
sparrow6224
Well-known
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.
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.
Bluedog2212
Member
Lens tests
Lens tests
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.
Lens tests
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
RF user by conviction
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).
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).
I would think of it as a 35mm and not a 50.
efix
RF user by conviction
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
Mentor
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.
