Guess the lens - a bit of fun.

This started as simply putting a lens on a digital camera in order to see how it performed, but I ended up trying a few. As the shots were similar, I thought it might be good for a bit of fun.

 

So, lenses are:

 

1. 2019 Fujinon 50mm f2 'Fujicron' native x-mount AF.

 

2. Mint condition 1979 Jupiter-8 50mm f2 (Contax mount).

 

3. Very scratched 1955 Jupiter-8 5cm f2 (LTM).

 

4. Canon 50mm f1.8 (LTM) with cloudy balsam between the 4th & 5th elements.

 

All were shot at f2.8, though there was more sun in some shots. No lens hoods were used.

 

A

 

B

 

C

 

D

 

 

I couldn't persuade my model to keep the same pose between lens changes. He was rewarded with a ball throw after every few shots!

I can't edit this into the original post, so this is a bonus round:

 

Not one of the lenses listed above, but also a 50mm shot at f2.8

 

Is it:

Helios-44 58mm f2

Hexanon 50mm f1.4

Hexanon 50mm f1.7

MD Rokkor 50mm f1.4

Is photo A with lens 4, the Canon 1.8?

Interesting experiment.

Loveable dogs, all five of them!

I haven't a clue, since I have zero knowledge of any of these lenses. However, other than the overall softness in the first shot, I'm willing to bet the nature of the bokeh would be the most distinguishing feature between the various samples. At least to my eye, that's the biggest differentiator. The only other, really, is color rendition, and I'm guessing you had WB set to auto, so there we will see changes from shot-to-shot as the light changed, unless to set the WB manually for all the shots?

I haven't a clue, since I have zero knowledge of any of these lenses. However, other than the overall softness in the first shot, I'm willing to bet the nature of the bokeh would be the most distinguishing feature between the various samples. At least to my eye, that's the biggest differentiator. The only other, really, is color rendition, and I'm guessing you had WB set to auto, so there we will see changes from shot-to-shot as the light changed, unless to set the WB manually for all the shots?

 

WB was set to 'sunlight', all shots were taken with the same image settings and are straight jpegs, resized only. The light was changing though. It's not a scientific comparison, just fun. You're right in looking at the out of focus areas, or the transition zone, though my examples don't really show much transition, I'll try something different next time.

 

Unfortunately, I only have the one modern lens in this focal length, would have been interesting to throw a few more into the comparison against my 40-60 year old lenses.

 

The Canon is a double-gauss, the Jupiter a Sonnar and the Fujinon is something modern (though from what I've been able to find, I think it might actually be a double-gauss/planar), all lenses in the bonus question are double-gauss/planar/biotar, if that helps any.

 

Franz, I thankfully only have one dog, believe me, one is enough.

Fujinon is something modern (though from what I've been able to find, I think it might actually be a double-gauss/planar),

Scrub that, I found a diagram, it's a 'something modern', I'm not even sure what it begins to call itself. Nobody has separated it from the others yet though...

Hmmm I have the Fuji 50 f2 which I like a lot. Sometimes it ends up on the camera and stays there for a while. But as much as I enjoy the photos, I haven't a clue about which is which, maybe the 1st one is the Fuji? Just from the greens? I don't know. :)

There usually is less difference in the end product than the "received knowledge" suggests among various lenses .

 

Sometimes I can identify catadioptric lens pictureso_O

If nobody else wants to guess, I'll post the answers later today.

I would guess that B and D were taken with the Jupiter-8 lenses. C with the Fujinon, and A with the Canon.

 

Possibly the Helios was used for the 'bonus' picture.

 

Pure guesswork, since I've only used Jupiter-8 lenses out of that list.

Sometimes I can identify catadioptric lens pictures

Right! I'm going to place a blob of Blu-tak on the front element of a refractive lens for the next challenge.:p

Edited October 12, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

I would guess that B and D were taken with the Jupiter-8 lenses. C with the Fujinon, and A with the Canon.

 

Possibly the Helios was used for the 'bonus' picture.

 

Pure guesswork, since I've only used Jupiter-8 lenses out of that list.

4/5, not bad for 'pure guesswork'!

 

Is photo A with lens 4, the Canon 1.8?

One point.

 

overall softness in the first shot

You get a point too, or half a point.

 

 

 

Photo A was the degraded Canon

 

Photo B was the scratched Jupiter-8

 

Photo C was the Fujinon

 

Photo D was the good Jupiter-8

 

Bonus Photo was the Hexanon 50/1.4

(I'd have expected the Helios to have swirled the background to some degree, even if it is lessened on APSc).

 

Looking myself, I can see that B & D are most similar in rendering to eachother and that the Fujinon © is maybe slightly sharper, but I have the benefit of knowing which was which.

 

I think that the hidden subtext of this thread is that, at least when resized for web use and when taking a 'normal' photo, not some test designed to highlight particular characteristics, it's really very hard to tell.

 

Interesting that nearly a century of development between the 1930's design of the Jupiter-8 (aka CZ Sonnar) and the modern Fujinon isn't really noticeable, at least under these conditions.

 

I think D is my favorite overall.

 

I think the Canon did not have the best light and could have actually done a little better.

 

If I have time tomorrow, I'll post some photos of the two 'damaged' lenses, to show just how bad they look.

 

 

I think it could be interesting to do this again, but with a more diverse selection of lenses, open to suggestions, should I use the same style of photos or something more 'controlled'?

One minor thought on lens quality and my personal experience. It seems that difference in lens quality and performance is most obvious in challenging conditions, and far less so in benign conditions/lower resolution sensors or prints. I think Steve's examples are of the less demanding type. I originally bought a Tamron 150-600 super zoom, and it performed in a satisfactory manner on my 16mp D5100 APS-C. When I upgraded to the 24mp D7100, it's deficiencies (or character, if one prefers) became much more discernible, and even more so on my 36mp D810. The thing that most bothered me was that out of focus elements resolved as double images, instead of simply becoming blurry or less distinct. I found the double images to be more distracting than I wanted. I subsequently purchased the Nikon 200-500mm. It does not have quite the reach, but is perceptibly sharper. It's greatest strength when compared to the Tamron is the character of out-of-focus objects, which are blurred, but not double-vision. These differences are most perceptible at extreme focus distances and in poor light. In good light and normal focus ranges these two lenses are nearly indestinguishable. Edited October 12, 2020 by DavidTriplett

I think it could be interesting to do this again, but with a more diverse selection of lenses, open to suggestions

Post a photo of yours you like for emotional or aesthetic reasons, to illustrate how what you gain by these lens tests manifests in non-exercise photos that mean something to you. Maybe choose a variety of photos where the difference in the lens used either helps or hurts the photo itself and the content within.

4/5, not bad for 'pure guesswork'!

 

 

One point.

 

 

You get a point too, or half a point.

 

 

 

Photo A was the degraded Canon

 

Photo B was the scratched Jupiter-8

 

Photo C was the Fujinon

 

Photo D was the good Jupiter-8

 

Bonus Photo was the Hexanon 50/1.4

(I'd have expected the Helios to have swirled the background to some degree, even if it is lessened on APSc).

 

Looking myself, I can see that B & D are most similar in rendering to eachother and that the Fujinon © is maybe slightly sharper, but I have the benefit of knowing which was which.

 

I think that the hidden subtext of this thread is that, at least when resized for web use and when taking a 'normal' photo, not some test designed to highlight particular characteristics, it's really very hard to tell.

 

Interesting that nearly a century of development between the 1930's design of the Jupiter-8 (aka CZ Sonnar) and the modern Fujinon isn't really noticeable, at least under these conditions.

 

I think D is my favorite overall.

 

I think the Canon did not have the best light and could have actually done a little better.

 

If I have time tomorrow, I'll post some photos of the two 'damaged' lenses, to show just how bad they look.

 

 

I think it could be interesting to do this again, but with a more diverse selection of lenses, open to suggestions, should I use the same style of photos or something more 'controlled'?

Thanks for the point! I'm not a lens expert, but I figured the cloudy glue would result in a less sharp image.

Here's the Canon:

That's between the elements of the rear cemented group.

 

And here is the Jupiter:

Those are scratches on the front and rear elements, lots of scratches.

 

I kept the Jupiter on my camera for the rest of the day and was confronted with heavy veiling flare every time the sun appeared. I should have used a lens hood!

 

The lenses actually look worse than the photos show.

To finish, here is the sensor of the Fuji X-T10 I used to shoot all of the photos except C:

Those are pock marks, not dust. I don't know what the previous owner did, changed lenses in a sandstorm?

 

At wide apertures, up to say, f5.6, the damage doesn't show. I use this camera for adapted manual lenses, mostly close to wide open. Not shown is the L-bracket which holds the camera together!

Post a photo of yours you like for emotional or aesthetic reasons, to illustrate how what you gain by these lens tests manifests in non-exercise photos that mean something to you. Maybe choose a variety of photos where the difference in the lens used either helps or hurts the photo itself and the content within.

I'll have a look through my library, but, contrary to what this thread may suggest, I'm not really a lens tester, perhaps a little bit of a collector, I've never photographed a test chart or a brick wall for testing purposes. I have examples of most of the 'classic' optical formulae from the 1930s, but that actually amounts to only a handfull of lenses for each camera mount (LTM, Contax/Kiev, M39/42, Konica AR, Fuji-XF) I own. Before digital mirrorless, I was restricted to using lenses on the camera system they were designed for.

 

I like to get a 'feel' for a lens, what it does well, where it falls down. I don't keep lenses that I don't like.

 

I'll typically use what I have to hand, I rarely go out with more than one, sometimes two lenses for personal work, but if I have an idea of what I'll be shooting, I'll try to pick the lens to suit my vision of what I want to achieve. It's hard to beat a Sonnar for casual portraits, for example, particularly if the light is low, but I'd avoid using one for wide landscapes unless it was all I had.

 

In short, I test gear to see if I like it, then I only use gear I like. I know my tastes well enough by now that I mostly only buy gear that I think I'll like.