Various Lens Evaluations

[nickles]

I'm a Canon Rebel 300d user. In the past year I've purchased various lenses on EBAY. A lot of manual focus.

I maintain a gallery of my simple evaluations of these lenses on Pbase. I think the gallery is self explainatory.

Just thought maybe some forum members might be interested in these data points. The gallery is located here:

http://www.pbase.com/knickles/lenstests (http://www.pbase.com/knickles/lenstests)

:D

[ron chappel]

Seriously usefull and well done stephen !
I particularly like the way all the photo's are taken at equal magnification which gives an excellent comparison between different focal lengths.

The takumar 135/3.5 is sharp isn't it. I remember briefly trying a later M model of one of those and being impressed by it's sharpness.

[mbze430]

Darn I was hoping to find a C/Z Distagon 21mm test! Keep up the good work.

[nickles]

Ron & mbze430:

Thanks for your comments...

Not familiar with the Distagon.....a good lens?

ken

[Andy_T]

Ken,

welcome to the forum! :D

Interesting comparison, I plan to do something similar once I have a bit more time at my hands :rolleyes: .

I currently have the Jupiter 9 85/2.0, the CZJ 135/3.5 (the non-MC version) and the Russian Tair-3 300/4.5 (aka Photo-sniper) in addition to my 18-55, Tamron 28-75/2.8 and 50/1.8 MKI.

I know that this is asking much, but do you also have some 100% crops as well? I find these very informative to judge the real sharpness of a lens.

Another question I have ... do you find it easy to focus the MF lenses with the DRebel viewfinder?
Do you use your MF lenses often?

I normally have a very hard time to get the pictures really sharp on my 20D and it really takes some time. OK, I am wearing glasses, this might be a major part of my problem.
However, when I want to take portraits, I normally only go for my 50/1.8 and Tamron 28-75/2.8, because the results with the MF lenses are too inconsistent. This basically leaves the 300/4.5 and the 135/3.5 as lenses I really use sometimes.

Best regards,
Andy

Edit: Don't know how I got the impression your name was actually Steven. Alzheimer maybe :o

[nickles]

Hi Andy:

All the evaluation photos were shot in RAW and processed with EOS Viewer with minimal processing. Contrast, saturation, and sharpness were set to Standard for jpg processing with sRGB color space. I did try to match exposures through histogram matching for each series. No other processing was done other than I did some jpg compression to permit a reasonable size for the web.


Not sure what you mean by 100% crops. The photos are posted at full frame, full size. When you view on Pbase be sure to select ORIGINAL for size when viewing if you desire the full size image. By right clicking you should be able to download if you desire. I've maintained the original RAWs and low compression jpegs on my computer. I cannot detect a noticeable difference between the low compression jpegs and the higher compression jpegs that I posted on Pbase.


If I could only keep one of the lenses that I evaluated, it would be the CZ Flektogon 35/2.4....Shortly after I bought it I went to the Ft. Worth Botanic Gardens and shot about 150 photos in a couple of hours. Maybe 10 were not keepers. It's almost like it can't shoot a bad photo. Extremely easy to focus....infinity focus is at 10-11 feet. It also has a close focus of about 4 inches...not quite macro but sure good for shooting flowers and larger insects. I love it...they're available on Ebay almost continuously...most from the Czech Republic. The average selling price with shipping is $122 and the selling range is $80 to $180. About 50% of my photos are shot with this lens.


The Tamron 90/2.5 Adaptall MF is a close second. I liked it so well that I bought a second in case something happened to the first. It's also extremely easy for me to focus...I only wear glasses for driving. The focusing ring turns a full 360 degrees, which sure helps. Its great for 1/2 macro work and extremely sharp but it's even a better portrait lens. I used to use the Canon 50/1.8 for portraits but now I pretty much use this lens. I guess I just like the feel of a focusing ring. The average selling price with shipping on Ebay is $134 with a range of $100 to $150.


I did want a wider prime lens until I studied the kit lens...I consider it to be extremely good at the wide end...but so..so at the longer end. I don't understand why it so often gets bad press. It's f4 at the wide end but all I've read about the larger aperture, more expensive wides..they're pretty soft wide-open...so no gain with fstop....just my opinion. I use it for my wider angle shooting.

Are you happy with the Tamron 28-75. I've generally been happy with mine...it looked pretty darn good in my evaluation...slightly soft wide open. I did front focus/back focus test and it looked good. But seems like at times I get more CA than I desire...and that seems "of and on". Just not quite comfortable with it yet. Think I've read to many posts from people who have obtained 2nd and 3rd copies after buying.


Hey I've got a little bit windy here...hope I answered your question.



.....ken


:)

[Andy_T]

Ken,

thanks for the answer :D

What I meant was pictures at full resolution ... doh :o ... had not seen that the 'original' was also available. Now that really answers my questions.

I am very happy with my Tamron 28-75/2.8.
In addition, I am happy with my kit lens at the wide end, too.

I did comparisons of my 50/1.8 MKI, Tamron 28-75/2.8 and 18-55 at 50 mm and found that I did get similar sharpness with the 50/1.8 @ f/2.8, the 28-75/2.8 @ f/4.0 and the 18-55 @ f/8.0. Of course, 50 mm is not the strongest focal length of the 18-55, and I would not really think of using it there. So, I consider it a very decent lens for the price when used at 18 mm @ f/5.6 and do not plan to upgrade it very soon. However, there are rumours of quality differences (aren't there always :wink: ?), and other users' copies might not be as good as mine (and yours, obviously).

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

Oops sorry Ken;) I was calling you stephen.

Very interesting comments on your favorite lenses- i've noticed a similar thing,some lenses just seem to work great.Much better than any numbers can say.

One more advantage you tests have is that the full size files can be downloaded and printed! There is nothing like the end result print for deciding a lens.
Unfortunately my own online tests will have to make do with 100% crops:cry: for the moment.

Andy-when you do you tests pleasepleaseplease:D do them similar to Ken's (at equal magnification)
I'm looking forward to the results of several of your lenses:)

[nickles]

Ron,

Thanks for the comments. I devised the test setup one afternoon when I was bored, in order to evaluate some of the cheap MF lenses that I had purchased on Ebay. At the time my primary concern was lense sharpness. I now wish that I had given a little more thought and provided a background that might have given insight to the lens bokeh...maybe small Christmas lights. Although you can detect a little of the lens CA in the test shots...especially around the old Energizer batteries...at the interface of the black text and chrome...I now wish that I'd included another target for CA. Maybe a small bird cage with something white behind it.

Hindsights always better than foresight. If anyone would like to mail me there collection of L- lenses (ha) I would be happy to shoot and post the results. I'll be watching my mail box.

ken

:D

[Simon Spiers]

I wish i could get hold of an adaptor for the Minolta AF lenses. I have a 50mm f1.4 that is soooooo sharp you could cut yourself on it! Trouble is the Minolta lenses use the camera itself to control appature as well as focus.

[karusel]

Very interesting, I am surprised by the sharpness of those (old?) Zeiss lenses wide open.

Very good work, test shots like these are very helpful for people when buying for new lenses.

[nickles]

I've added a full size crop gallery to my old lens evaluation galleries that is located here: (use the next and previous in gallery for neat effect..also select original for fullsize)

http://www.pbase.com/knickles/crops

Some of my EBAY spot prices here:

http://www.pbase.com/knickles/image/41253600 (http://www.pbase.com/knickles/image/41253600.jpg)

ken

:D

[radar-eclipse]

Man, your sick. I'm jealous. I wish I had that kind of time. Great task and job!

[ron chappel]

I wish i could get hold of an adaptor for the Minolta AF lenses. I have a 50mm f1.4 that is soooooo sharp you could cut yourself on it! Trouble is the Minolta lenses use the camera itself to control appature as well as focus.

Simon,your in luck...well sort of;)
While no one makes a minolta AF to EOS camera adapter ,it is possible to test that kind of lens on an EOS body.
The way to do it is to simply hold the minolta lens against the EOS camera.:eek:
Because the minolta lens to film distance is only half of a mm longer than EOS,it makes little or no effect to the overall optical quality.With a lens like 50/1.4 ,where all the lens elements move as one group when focussing ,the optical performance is not compromised at all (not even theoretically).

The trick is to use the aperture wide open or use a tiny wad of paper to hold open the aperture lever at the back of the lens.
You'll have to guess the right size aperture -that would be easy if you fit it to a minolta camera and hit the stop down button

[Ballen Photo]

I'm a Canon Rebel 300d user. In the past year I've purchased various lenses on EBAY. A lot of manual focus.

I maintain a gallery of my simple evaluations of these lenses on Pbase. I think the gallery is self explainatory.

Just thought maybe some forum members might be interested in these data points. The gallery is located here:

http://www.pbase.com/knickles/lenstests (http://www.pbase.com/knickles/lenstests)

:D
Stephen, Very well done! Thanks for posting this. :D
I've been following some of the threads on this by Andy Thaler and Ron Chappel (Thanks Guys), and your submission to this is very nice.
I bought a Zenitar Fisheye lens on ebay a short time ago that came with a threaded EOS adapter which I assume is an M42 adapter? Is this correct? TIA for the answer.
BTW, I have a small collection of Pentax lenses, which include the 135 Takumar, but these are all "K" mount. :(
-Bruce

[Ballen Photo]

Oops sorry Ken;) I was calling you stephen.

Me TOO. :rolleyes: I thought it did say Stephen on your test/comparison page.
-Bruce

[Andy_T]

Bruce,

it should be mentioned either on the lens or on the adapter. Still, it will either be M42 or T-mount, but I assume it's M42, as most Zenitar lenses offered are M42.

See if you can score a Sonnar 135/3.5, it's a sweet lens!

Best regards,
Andy

[Ballen Photo]

See if you can score a Sonnar 135/3.5, it's a sweet lens!

Thanks Andy, Is this what you're talking about?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7523589551&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
-Bruce

[Andy_T]

It is the very one.
There are also some auctions for the older single coated version (available for 49$) which most likely takes the same high quality images, but is not as nicely built and has a cheap feel to it.

What amazes me is that the market obviously is 'dried up' at the moment, as all the lenses are available obviously for the same price, which might be considered a little high. Forum members (including myself) have bought cheaper copies of the lens (e.g. 60-80$) ... but not all were really in 'mint' condition.

Still, the lens is definitely worth the money. Check out the 'sticky' thread on the issue (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70506).

Best regards,
Andy

[nickles]

For those following this thread, I made another post here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=98258

I've recently been using this lens although I bought it on Ebay several months ago on a whim. Occasionaly they show up on Ebay and sell for under $50...can't find much info on the lens but as near as I can determine it is a 1960's vintage lense. The one I bought is an Adapt-A-Matic (pre-Adaptall) with an integral M42 thread. Has a built in lens shade and integral tripod support ring. About 12 inches long extended. I've found it to be reasonablly sharp at all f-stops. I consider it to be much of a bargain for someone needing a long 300mm lens.

ken
:lol:

[buze]

I have about 40 manual lens now, I use mostly that for the day-to-day-shooting; I keep the Canon glass only for "important" shoots, or for moving targets !
Otherwise I pick any 3 or 4 and get that in the bag instead ! :D