|
ErikKaffehr
|
 |
« on: December 30, 2012, 08:52:52 PM » |
 Reply
|
Hi, A small experiment, inspired by "Chrismuc" on the MF thread. I recently compared three lenses: A brand new Sony Alpha 70-400/4-5.6 zoom A 25 year old Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO A Sonnar 150/4 for Hasselblad from the 70-ies? It's a black T* coated lens Test was done on APS-C camera with 24 MPixels, (pitch 3.9 micron), corresponds to 54MP on full frame DSLR, so it is pretty demanding. Landscape sharpening on all. I could make the test with a full frame camera but any difference would be less visible as there is no 54MP full frame camera. Would you be interested, the article describing the test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapterI would be interested if anyone sees any differences? Best regards Erik |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 10:07:03 PM by ErikKaffehr »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hsteeves
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 43
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2012, 09:09:50 PM » |
Reply
|
considering the lenses, I would be interested is seeing how they perform on a full frame body.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2012, 09:12:48 PM » |
Reply
|
considering the lenses, I would be interested is seeing how they perform on a full frame body.
The same. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
K.C.
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2012, 09:22:35 PM » |
Reply
|
The same.
The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2012, 09:59:41 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes, And there is no full frame 135 camera with 54 MP digital sensor. Best regards Erik The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2012, 10:40:30 PM » |
Reply
|
The APS-C is using the center of the lens so we have no idea what the a full frame body would reveal for each lens.
In which case the question should be "how they perform in the corners on a full frame body." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2012, 10:56:43 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi, I did not make it clear. The image is a pretty central crop at actual pixels. I'll make a comparison at full frame and also have a corner crop, in a few days. Best regards Erik In which case the question should be "how they perform in the corners on a full frame body."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 11:00:28 PM by ErikKaffehr »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BarbaraArmstrong
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2012, 11:24:41 PM » |
Reply
|
I like the texture of the peel in the first one, but would choose the third for the combination of rendering of the immediate subject (good definition and contrast in the peel) and much deeper depth of field (focus). For a landscape photographer, that combination is powerful. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert reviewer, but that's how I see it. --Barbara
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2012, 11:54:05 PM » |
Reply
|
Thanks a lot! All comments are much appreciated. Best regards Erik I like the texture of the peel in the first one, but would choose the third for the combination of rendering of the immediate subject (good definition and contrast in the peel) and much deeper depth of field (focus). For a landscape photographer, that combination is powerful. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert reviewer, but that's how I see it. --Barbara
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fine_Art
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2012, 12:43:03 AM » |
Reply
|
For me the oranges look more or less the same. The difference is in the bokeh of the book lettering. The first one has a smooth Gaussian blur. The others are starting to form hard lines.
IMO that is the traditional advantage of medium format, the longer FL for a bigger lens gives smoother OOF. F8 on a hassy lens is not the same as f8 on a 135 lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2012, 12:58:26 AM » |
Reply
|
... IMO that is the traditional advantage of medium format, the longer FL for a bigger lens gives smoother OOF. F8 on a hassy lens is not the same as f8 on a 135 lens.
How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2012, 01:32:56 AM » |
Reply
|
Hi, I agree with Slobodan. One of the images was taken at 140 (according to EXIF) the others at 150mm nominally. Same nominal aperture was used on all. Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close. Depth of field also depends on "pupil magnification", but this test was done at 3.8 meters distance, and I think pupil magnification can be ignored. Best regards Erik How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fine_Art
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2012, 03:10:29 AM » |
Reply
|
How is it longer? I assume all shots were done at 150mm. Also, how's is f/8 not the same if all lenses are at 150 mm and the sensor size is the same?
You are right, I am thinking of the registration distance from the back of the lens. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2012, 03:20:55 AM » |
Reply
|
>Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close.<
Would it be better if the images weren't done using flash? Flash changes the merit's of an image for better or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2012, 03:25:01 AM » |
Reply
|
Can you explain? I sort of like flash as illumination for testing. Best regards Erik >Exposure was by electronic flash and all exposures were pretty close.<
Would it be better if the images weren't done using flash? Flash changes the merit's of an image for better or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2012, 04:02:32 AM » |
Reply
|
Unless the thrust of a test is about using flash - and it's merits and demerit's - then I suspect that most people undertaking a test about equipment would avoid their use because it skewers the outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2012, 04:08:32 AM » |
Reply
|
Hi, In what way does it skew the outcome? Can you explain? You are thinking spectral characteristics? Best regards Erik Unless the thrust of a test is about using flash - and it's merits and demerit's - then I suspect that most people undertaking a test about equipment would avoid their use because it skewers the outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BobFisher
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2012, 06:28:22 AM » |
Reply
|
If the lighting is consistent for all shots then the source of the light is immaterial.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Paraphrasing Cyril Connolly: Better to shoot for yourself and have no public than to shoot for the public and have no self. RF-PhotographyFind me on Facebook |
|
|
|
allegretto
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2012, 06:38:47 AM » |
Reply
|
just an amateur, but the texture of that orange in its mid-body and navel look different between 1 and 3
secondly, again just my opinion but I think I know which camera you used and having owned one myself was never sure I liked its rendering ability, even without comparisons. I think that generation of that brand falls flat for me. Of course YMMV...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
