Do you mean there was not much difference between them in optical performance, or that the differences were irrelevant to practical photography? One of the reasons I wanted to pursue such an analysis is because there is a big difference in price between standard lenses, and once you take away mechanical quality, I wonder whether that cost difference is born out in optical performance. Is there, for example, a real and perceivable difference between a Leitz or a Contax standard lens, and a Chinon or Zenit lens at a fraction of the price?Why? I ask because when Modern Photography that used to be published mass tests of normal lenses for 35 mm SLRs differences between best and worst rarely amounted to much.
Is there, for example, a real and perceivable difference between a Leitz or a Contax standard lens, and a Chinon or Zenit lens at a fraction of the price?
Do you mean there was not much difference between them in optical performance, or that the differences were irrelevant to practical photography?
- where they start rolling off badly at the edges of the visible seems to vary --
Difference you will see if you shoot handheld in dark, wide open, 1/30s. Difference between lenses that you are talking about is more about the signature of the lens, and not so much about sharpness. And those things like signature, character... are not so easy to measure as sharpness - that is why manufacturers like sharpness - it is easy to measure, but it is not so important in real life (at least not to me).
Difference you will see if you shoot handheld in dark, wide open, 1/30s. Difference between lenses that you are talking about is more about the signature of the lens, and not so much about sharpness. And those things like signature, character... are not so easy to measure as sharpness - that is why manufacturers like sharpness - it is easy to measure, but it is not so important in real life (at least not to me).
Thanks for the feedback. As the owner of a number of 50mm lenses from various manufacturers I have my favourites. This is sometimes because they appear very sharp, and in other cases because they render the image subjectively in a way that matches how I remember the scene. Quantifying that appearance is something that is rarely described in a way that is useful to photographers, for example people talk about "pop" as though it was an optical phenomenon with specific characteristics.
Having looked at all all kinds of lenses and the images they make over many years, I think the preference comes down to high contrast or low contrast varieties, which is associated (though not exclusively) with the evolution of optical coatings and computer aided design. Highly corrected, multi-element lenses do not always translate their advantages into a 2-dimensional viewing plane like a computer screen, and even less into a print, yet their rendering is prized by reviewers and attracts a high value, even though alternative renderings may be much more pleasing aesthetically.
Extensively tested by the photo magazines at the time. Results show most to be blurry at the corners and low contrast wideI've been looking for an objective test on 50mm standard lenses in the f1.8 to f2 range, the kind that came with SLR bodies from the 1960s to 1980s. There is a great deal of anecdote out there, and Googling mostly takes me to subjective comparisons between lens a and lens b, which are neither scientific nor comprehensive. Given that these are the most common lenses around, I'd be interested in any serious optical tests between manufacturer's standard lenses.
But subjective is all there really is! Data sheets are worse than useless, as they neglect IQ, which has nothing to do w/ measured crap. Find the lens that makes the best images according to your sensibilities. Or, just get an old non A. I. Nikkor 50 2, or a Leica R 50 2 Summicron (early version), and be done w/ it. I don't see how those can be improved upon, but that's only my highly subjective opinion.
Most normal lenses are not optimized for use wide open and so a test of them wide open is really not a fair test. The Leica Nokton however is designed to be used wide open and is optimized for this purpose. Indeed its resolution decreases as it is stopped down. AFAIK all lens are optimized at only one aperture.
I have DSB and ML versions of various Yashica lenses. The first is single coated, the second multi-coated. The first is cheap and less undesirable, the second is more expensive (relatively) and desirable. The Contax version, more so again. In reality although they render slightly differently, neither is "better" than the other.If you were to take a single coated and multi coated lens but otherwise identical lens from Cosina Voightlanders range and shoot identical scenes with alternate lenses you should detect different signatures in typical scenes.
Lots of people bought a single coated lens new!
So two questions
Did they like their shadows flashed?
Did they like their colours pastelled?
The correction of aberrations would have been similar.
Most of the shots I took yesterday were with a single coated double gauss four group design you don't need to know the manufacturer or name plate.
I have DSB and ML versions of various Yashica lenses. The first is single coated, the second multi-coated. The first is cheap and less undesirable, the second is more expensive (relatively) and desirable. The Contax version, more so again. In reality although they render slightly differently, neither is "better" than the other.
The underlying point is people are easily swayed by anecdote, more so in a democratic blogosphere, and subjective responses take on an authoritative, objective tone. My advice would be try to divorce financial value from aesthetic value and blind test your lenses. Don't be lead by popularity and price as an index of photographic quality.
Here are a couple:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?