Group: Member
Post: 69 (2 liked)
Join date: October 2018
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 20:15:07 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 20:15:07 GMT
Im in the process of cleaning up mine optical stash.
Triggered by the late post about super yashi (preset) 35/2.8 I decided to make a quick close-up comparison between my yashi lenses, 35 and 50-55 one.
“Close-up” setup: 1.25-1.45m, a metal object, some paper with bar code and some text.. I was curios about CA and 'sharpens'.
Im delighted to inform you:
the differences are so small that I could say - they are all 'the same'.
Well, from f:- 2/2.8 (being fair to slower lenses so 1 stop up) they are 98% the same.
Call it 'IQ', “rendering', … or any other hype-buzz name/word.
There is a slight difference in CA (occurring on all lenses on same places) and 'sharpens (+/_ 2%)'.
ds 35/2.8 is the 'same' as super yashi (preset) 35/2.8 (that is supposed to be Tomioka?)
,
And from the beautiful silver auto yashi 5.5cm/1.8, ... via DX (1.4/1.7) & DS (1.7/1.9), DS-M (1.4/1.7) .. all the way to ML 50/1.7 .. same optics – bit in different package.
There is only one noticeable difference:
Some SOOC has yellowish/brownish colour, other greenish.
Probably coating thing.
So scratching my head now: why do I need so many (same) lenses from Mr.Yashinon-San?
Because the exterior and naming is different but interior is the same?
Now you understand the title of this post …
Note: DOF was not the part of this comparison.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 18, 2020 11:03:00 GMT
Posted: Jul 18, 2020 11:03:00 GMT
There is no "optical swindel", it's a basic Lens Design, which evolved over the years, with different materials, Glass Sorts, Housings/Barrels, Coatings, and so on. Until you're not being a technical, optical Engineer with a decades old Reputation, this seems to be a strange, weird Post here into the Forum. Differences are usually being subtle, not worlds apart.
FYI, DS Lenses are single-coated only, and not as good, as their ML (Multilayer)-coated Counterparts. And without proven Samples 1:1 at the exact, 100% same camera Settings, F-Stop, Shutterspeed, picture frame, it's hard to recognise your bold Statement.
A good Weekend.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,370 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jul 18, 2020 20:35:54 GMT
Posted: Jul 18, 2020 20:35:54 GMT
Context is important. A 1960's camera may have had an M42 mount, while a 1980's lens had a bayonet. The mounts progressed to help cameras perform more functions, and to advance to the next generation, new lenses had to progress too. The new ones may appear to have only changed the mount hardware, but that may not be all that happened. While a 60's lens and an 80's lens may have been the same focal length and speed, and their optical diagrams might even have been identical as X elements in X groups - their optical glass formulas may have been vastly different. The 60's lens may use radioactive compounds, where the 80's lens used advanced formulas of glass that didn't require radioactivity to perform the same. The elements and groups may have remained constant in number, but the shapes may have changed to take advantage of better glass formulas. Later lenses are generally made better as raw glass, and then ground and polished better as lens elements. Tree sap derivitives (i.e., Canadian balsam) was no longer used to glue individual elements together, when synthetics came into use. Distortion problems and edge sharpness got better, CA gets better controlled, clarity and color rendering gets better, and less construction issues with fewer bubbles (to none at all), and balsam seperation from age and/or temperature swings are greatly reduced or eliminated. As lenslover mentions, early lenses had no coatings, then had a single coating that was Highly Reflective (HR), and on to Anti-Reflective (AR) coatings, and later yet, multiple AR coatings. Comparing the new to the old, consider the hue and clarity of greens and blues, and how faithful they are to the real item they photograph. Reds seem easier to render well, but greens can look 'off'. In the decades I've been using lenses, I've never felt that I've gotten 'swindled' with revisions, or even old rehashed glass in a new package. Quite the opposite in my experience. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 22 (2 liked)
Join date: March 2020
Status: Normal is for everyone but me
|
|
on Jul 19, 2020 18:50:40 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 19, 2020 20:00:17 GMT by Acihsay
easy way to offset color balance issues in landscape or other outdoor natural daylight digital photography
Skylight Filters 1A and 1B - some 1A filter brands use a dirty light brown - use pink or violet tinted colors,
Auto WB on most cameras seems to handle older glass much better or at least gets you on the field of play
using them, a UV is a lens cap.
Depends on what you are trying to achieve, which perfect accuracy in colors is far from any priority with me in landscapes.
This applies to using 60's glass with single and next to nothing coatings or yellowed glass from Thorium Oxide - UV filters are like Tits on a Boar Hog
Sometimes I post things without thinking about what I just said above?
In the days when you had to fight your way to the counter through a crowd at a camera store BeB (before ebay), pushing away what were apparently camera store campers, who spread out their gear 12 feet on each side? The salesmen used to push the heck out of Skylight filters, and they did because it was the missing link in coatings most lenses did not have. Find a Multi-coated Skylight 1B and screw it on your yellow tainted lens for daylight outdoor natural light imagery, and be amazed with your new lens that handles greens ...
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Aug 6, 2020 19:39:49 GMT
Posted: Aug 6, 2020 19:39:49 GMT
I agree with all that has been said. There are a ton of examples of lenses changing over the years from the same manufacturer. Sometimes the changes were merely cosmetic and on the exterior, but other times they were strictly internal and it's hard to tell the difference between two lenses which are actually different.
A good example is lens coatings -- and not just un-coated vs single-coated vs multi-coated. Multi-coating was not static. It changed over time, even though the lens appears exactly the same. Sometimes the manufacturer made other changes that are noticeable, but sometimes not. The same goes for glass formulas, etc.
USUALLY the changes were for the better, but sometimes changes were to make lenses lighter (more plastic), smaller, less expensive to manufacture or compete, etc.
The only way to know is to test.
|
|
