Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Feb 17, 2016 20:16:07 GMT
Posted: Feb 17, 2016 20:16:07 GMT
Hi Guys,
Just to let you know that I'm going to reshoot the 50 1.4 lenses again; I can't believe that they look as poor as they do compared with the 1.7s.
I shot them full frame but I'm going to use the Fuji X-T1 with Focus Assist to double check - if the same softness appears, then I'll load the images and be disturbed...if not, I'll be happier. As all the images I'm uploading are cropped to reduce the file size in any case, I don't think shooting cropped from the outset should introduce any problems. More anon....
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Feb 22, 2016 23:59:12 GMT
Posted: Feb 22, 2016 23:59:12 GMT
Would be nice to throw in a dsm 1.4/50 for good measure just to see how the best m42 lenses stand up to their ML successors. But don't get me wrong, Graham, I'm not addressing a wish list to you (or anybody else around here). I'd love to do such testing myself, it's just that I don't have the proper equipment to do so. (My wife's 550d would hardly be up to the job, I'm afraid, even if we had a C/Y-to-EOS adapter.)
Michael
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Feb 23, 2016 2:29:37 GMT
Posted: Feb 23, 2016 2:29:37 GMT
Hello Michael, You are of course quite right; ideally we should ultimately test every lens produced under the various Yashica brands; sadly, as of today my only M42 is the Tomioka Yashinon 60mm f2.8 Macro. If that lens tells me anything it is that some of the M42s are superior to the C/Y series that followed them. I suppose, having literally dozens of ML standard lenses, I should sell/swap a few of them for some of the older glass and set up some more tests.... A Yashica fan's work is never done...
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Feb 24, 2016 3:26:01 GMT
Posted: Feb 24, 2016 3:26:01 GMT
At last - the 1.4s have been re-shot and I'm glad I did as the images are closer to what experience told me to expect - the Focus Assist on the Fuji was essential. It's a pity no such capability exists on the old EOS 1DsMkII!
This post will show the Planar and ML lenses wide-open as discussed earlier, showing them both under worst case conditions for softness, distortion, etc. The top image is uncropped from the Fuji - all others in this and the next post are heavily cropped from full frame images. In the second post, the lenses can be seen at f5.6.
OK - first off the Zeiss 1.4 (left) and ML 1.4 at f1.4
Now the Zeiss 1.7 (left) and ML 1.7 (right) at f1.7
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Feb 24, 2016 3:29:53 GMT
Posted: Feb 24, 2016 3:29:53 GMT
OK - here are the same lenses at f5.6...
Zeiss (left) and ML (right) 1.4s...
Zeiss (left) and ML (right) 1.7s...
Although the 1.4s are both sharper than the 1.7s wide-open, there's nothing really to choose between them from f4-f11.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Feb 24, 2016 11:28:58 GMT
Posted: Feb 24, 2016 11:28:58 GMT
Although the 1.4s are both sharper than the 1.7s wide-open, there's nothing really to choose between them from f4-f11. U-huh ... that puts matters into perspective again (to be frank, I was rather taken aback about the ML's performance in your first test). And there is a lesson to be learned, I guess--I've decided to use my Planar wide open much more often as that is where its strengths lie (which, of course, also makes a case for cameras capable of really fast speeds unless you want to use an ND filter). Thanks a lot for your excellent work! Michael
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 25, 2016 14:37:54 GMT
Posted: Feb 25, 2016 14:37:54 GMT
I was expecting another kind of comparison. It's not clear enough .
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Feb 25, 2016 17:04:12 GMT
Posted: Feb 25, 2016 17:04:12 GMT
I was expecting another kind of comparison. It's not clear enough . What is it you would like to see?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 25, 2016 17:39:58 GMT
Posted: Feb 25, 2016 17:39:58 GMT
I was expecting another kind of comparison. It's not clear enough . What is it you would like to see? Open field tests for example. I'll make my own test when I receive my non glass adapters. I'm already using my ml 50 1.4 but only with lens turbo so I can't make a proper judgement yet.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Mar 3, 2016 13:07:54 GMT
Posted: Mar 3, 2016 13:07:54 GMT
Again, Graham--thank you very much for sacrificing your spare time to benefit the users of this forum! Michael
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Mar 3, 2016 23:59:55 GMT
Posted: Mar 3, 2016 23:59:55 GMT
Thank you Michael.
Although we've got a long way to go yet with evaluating Yashica/Zeiss glass, I've been wondering if we should occasionally look at other popular or specialist lenses that have been produced in C/Y mounts.
I know a lot of Yashica (and Contax) owners use lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar and other manufacturers in addition to our favourite Yashica and Zeiss glass. Some of these lenses fill gaps in the C/Y range, e.g Tamron SP 350 f5.6 Mirror, Sigma 500 f4.5 non-reflex while others are one-offs that are both high-quality and interesting, such as Vivitar's Series 1 QDOS 70-210 f2.8-4 3-D lens or some of the Schneider-Kreuznach or Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar optics. Could be fun and might bring more people to the joys of our Forum...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 1, 2016 21:09:21 GMT
Posted: Apr 1, 2016 21:09:21 GMT
I will soon post here the comparison I've made today in a friend's Sony A7R between Yashica 1.4, 1.7, smc takumar 1.4, mamiya 55mm f1. 4 and helios 44m-6 (58mm f2). It's shooting to a test chart in full frame, so the camera was probably too close and it's not too scientific, put you can have an idea. To my surprise, the best corner to corner is Yashica 50 1.7, better than 1.4 version in this camera. I'm still waiting for an adapter to test them in my camera (fuji xe1 apsc) without lens turbo, but I'm a little but astonished because with lens turbo Yashica 1.4 seems better to me than 1.7 at the same apertures...
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Apr 2, 2016 1:35:07 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 2, 2016 1:35:27 GMT by Deleted
Numbertwo, I'm afraid that, apart from the well-known potential fallacies, an additional snag of such tests is that they usually do not take sample deviation into account, only comparing one specimen of lens A with one of lens B, C, and D. From that point of view, I found Paguru's test, using two ML 1.7 samples, especially enlightening ... and sort of disillusioning too... Michael
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 20, 2016 13:04:07 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2016 13:04:07 GMT
Ha! came upon this site because of this thread. True eye opener indeed.
In a month's time I'll be in a posession of the following 50s:
ML f/1.9 ML f/2 Minolta MD f/1.4 Rollei HFT f/1.8 (Not exactly Zeiss 1.7 T but propably close)
I might be prompted to compare some of them. I'm just a rookie, but if it's lepful, I can take some test shots on cropped sensor.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Apr 20, 2016 20:55:54 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2016 20:55:54 GMT
Ha! came upon this site because of this thread. True eye opener indeed. In a month's time I'll be in a posession of the following 50s: ML f/1.9 ML f/2 Minolta MD f/1.4 Rollei HFT f/1.8 (Not exactly Zeiss 1.7 T but propably close) I might be prompted to compare some of them. I'm just a rookie, but if it's lepful, I can take some test shots on cropped sensor. It would be very interesting to see the results.
The good thing about using a cropped sensor is that you are closer to the centre of the lens, its sweet spot, which is where you usually get the best performance. Rollei HFT will be interesting as I've never used one but I'm very keen to see a comparison between the 50 ML f1.9 and f2... The Minolta might do quite well as it's soft at the edges but pretty fair at the centre although it is reputed to have chroma issues.
Thank you very much for the offer of some shots - can't wait....
|
|