Test scans, Zeiss Biogon 35/2 and others on the RD-1

Scans from Sean Reid's tests of the Asph 35/1.4, Zeiss Biogon 35/2, various

Canons etc can be found at the <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/

rd1.html">rangefinder forum</a>

Sean seems to have had quite a patient subject.

Thanks, Paul, and bravo, Sean. The images are slow to load, making direct

comparison a bit tougher, and who knows how much noise focus error, subject

movement, &c. contributed. But an initial subjective impression: his 35/1.2 CV is

shockingly good wide open -- if size weren't an issue, I think such quality with an

extra third of a stop might put it on top of the 35 'lux Asph overall. The 35/2 Zeiss

looked fine, but nothing spectacular (the most lopsided peripheral bokeh this side of

the old Canon 35/1.5, apparently). And the latter (the 35/1.5) really is sharp in the

center, per its reputation.

Why do the OOF circles from some shiny objects have a spot in the center? It appears

on every lens to varying degrees, whether the bokeh is double-lined or not. Across

the board, the backgrounds are smoother at f2.8, not to mention contrastier and

sharper (at the plane of focus). The OOF circles got smaller, rounder, and more evenly

illuminated, too. I guess the number of blades is important, as you're going to get the

best bokeh stopped down a little. Doesn't much matter if the background isn't busy,

though.

I've only downloaded a few, but it's interesting to see how bokeh does vary

according to aperture, so that therefore evaluating (or condemning) bokeh on

the basis of one shot is unwise - it's something you can only judge

(subjectively, at that) after using a lens in many different situations. That's if

bokeh is your primary concern, of course...

Well, they're all pretty sharp and contrasty, except the Canon 50/1.2.

on second look, it's only soft at f1.2. compared to the 50 summicron, it's pretty sharp

at f2.8, and sharp all over at f8.

Paul,

 

I regret that the nuances of each photo were not visible to me, on my

12 inch black and white monitor.

 

Jerry

Since these are full-size images the best way to evaluate them IMO is to print them. Most

of the resolution differences you can see on-screen at full-res disappear in print, unless

you're making really large prints. What you can easily see in print is contrast and tonality.

 

I quite like the Canon 35mm f/1.5 and it's probably the softest lens of the bunch. (That's

my lens in the test...I loaned it to Sean.) It gives somewhat flat images out-of-camera (the

R-D1, that is) but with contrast adjustment in Photoshop prints look very good with a full

palette of tones.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a fast 35 or 40mm lens with great bokeh wide open. They all

seem to improve at f/2.8.

 

-Dave-

Thanks for the posting. Makes one wonder what the RD-2 will be like, yes?

 

(Thought I'd start a rumor . . . )

The CV 35/1.2 does indeed impress - which matches my experience with the lens.

 

The Summilux 35 is just impossible to beat; the skin tones are incredible and the bokeh is great too.

 

I'm not impressed with the Zeiss. The bokeh on the champagne bottle above and to the right of the subject looks like some kind of weird jaggedy centipede. Ugh.

 

The Canon 35/2 isn't as smooth as I'd expected based on pictures I've taken with mine. But there you go....

 

And I *still* love my Nikkor LTM 50/1.4

I'm almost sorry I let my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 go, Bob. But I still like my 50mm Nokton, so it's OK.

The new Zeiss 35mm is a very nice lens actually. Judging by the admittedly limited amount of pic-taking I've done with it (a friend owns one) I'd say its out-of-focus rendering is smoother than most 35/40mm lenses I've used. It's certainly smoother than that of my Summicron-C. This doesn't mean it'll be smoother in every single photo of course.

 

-Dave-

My initial reaction (comparing each at f2.8) is the opposite of the above - the Zeiss gives

the roundest/most appealing image to my eye. However, I find it extremely difficult to

judge with confidence on the screen even despite the noble effort/patience etc. of those

involved.

Yeah, at f/2.8 the Zeiss looks very nice indeed (though the standout at this aperture/

focal distance/&c., at least rear bokeh-wise, appears to be the CV 40/1.4 -- and I

think the 35/1.4 'lux still looks tops overall). My earlier comments were based only

on the wide-open performance samples; on stopping down to f/2.8, the 35/1.2

doesn't seem to improve as much as others, to my eye.

 

More generally, since we have lots of variety in our opinions on these, I'm curious

what our various critical eyes focus on in assessing the shots. For me, it's mainly:

roundness and smoothness of rear oof specular highlights; sharpness of the girl's

hair/eyes; her freckle/cheek tonality; and flare/resolution of the white napkin corner

that pops up mid-frame. What kinds of details have caught the eyes of others?

Nice test, but if I have ever felt restricted by dial-up, it was when I clicked on the first thumb. There are not enough hours in the day to look at these, and my memory of the last image would be lost by the time the next one popped (oozed) up.

The most impressive aspect of this test is how well the RD-1 performs with all of the lenses.

Although Im a well known fan of the 40mm focal length, I expected the 40mm Voigtlander, which was designed without ASPH technologies to give a more classic look, to be totally outclassed by the new Zeiss 35, Leica 35 f1.4 ASPH and Summicron 50 but in resolving the bottle label shows it to be very good indeed. Unless the magnification difference is giving it an edge do you think?

I think the Biogon looks good wide open. Though not circular, the OOF

circles aren't obstrusive. They're circular at f2.8, and along with the 40/1.4, has the

roundest, most evenly illuminated OOF circles. Most of the Canons and both Leicas

get sawteeth and sharper corners that become visible at greater enlargements.