Sony 135 f/1.8 v. Hasselblad 120 f/4 Makro - last test

"David Ruether" wrote in message ...

Which were the point of the "test' and a reasonable conclusion
drawn from looking at the results.

Um, to clean up that mess, let me substitute this one...;-)
"Which was the point of the "test", and there were still
reasonable conclusions to be drawn from looking at the
results."
--DR

wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:

Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).

And now Hasselblad H series lenses are made by Fujinon, not CZ.

The Fujinon lenses I have used were absolutely amazing. Their medium format range finder optics on their 6X9 are just as sharp as
some of the best 35mm stuff!

Yes, as were the few Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 6x4.5 lenses I've
owned. Both the (35mm-format) 28mm equivalent lenses were
very sharp to the corners even wide open, something that very
few 28mm lenses on 35mm ever were... Fuji lenses for 4x5
also have a good reputation, but I've owned only Nikkors and
Schneiders for that format. One thing that has always surprised
me is that (unexpectedly, to me...) larger format lenses can often
keep up with smaller format ones in "resolution per unit area
covered" - and I first ran across this effect when using an old
202mm lens (that would cover 5x7) on a camera with a 35mm
film back, and the images taken with it were very sharp.
--DR

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).

And now Hasselblad H series lenses are made by Fujinon, not CZ.


The Fujinon lenses I have used were absolutely amazing. Their medium
format range finder optics on their 6X9 are just as sharp as some of the
best 35mm stuff!

I'm sure Hasselblad don't choose lightly. I don't know for a fact, but
it may be that Carl Zeiss were not willing to make a light enough lens
for snappy autofocus.

David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for

There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being at a slightly different spot on the coin*.

*Ahem...! ;-)

It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.

Don't neither! ;-) You cannot compare sharpness directly in what are
essentially two different subjects (the differing sharp areas of the
subjects shot with the two lenses).

FOOD FIGHT!!!!


They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.

Which were the point of the "test' and a reasonable conclusion
drawn from looking at the results.

To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
would also affect sense of sharpness...

It's lighter, actually. And yes, darker appears to be more contrasty which suggests (but isn't necessarily) sharper.

On my monitor (that changes little left to right, but much top to
bottom...), with switching the coin positions and looking at their
general brightnesses and comparing the brightnesses of the wood
area upper lefts and lower lefts, the left photo appears to be slightly
darker, which with this subject, would (slightly...) favor a sense of
slighter greater sharpness on the left (but I agree that it would
likely be only a matter of perception here...;-).

The subject is the coins, not the wood ...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.

Don't neither! ;-) You cannot compare sharpness directly in what are
essentially two different subjects (the differing sharp areas of the
subjects shot with the two lenses).

FOOD FIGHT!!!!

..... SPLAT!!! .... 8^)

On my monitor (that changes little left to right, but much top to
bottom...), with switching the coin positions and looking at their
general brightnesses and comparing the brightnesses of the wood
area upper lefts and lower lefts, the left photo appears to be slightly
darker, which with this subject, would (slightly...) favor a sense of
slighter greater sharpness on the left (but I agree that it would
likely be only a matter of perception here...;-).

The subject is the coins, not the wood ...

But the wood backgrounds help us establish if we are really comparing
the proverbial "apples with apples" with the coins, or instead comparing
"apples with slightly more orange-like apples"...;-)
--DR

Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Alan Browne wrote

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl Zeiss
quality.

I don't see any difference in sharpness but the Sony still shows a bit
of CA at the edges of the white highlights.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Alan Browne wrote
The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl Zeiss
quality.

I don't see any difference in sharpness but the Sony still shows a bit
of CA at the edges of the white highlights.

I'll look at that tomorrow but I'd be very surprised - this is a center
10% crop - CA? I doubt it. ... Fresh eyes tomorrow, SO is nagging me to
go watch Dexter ... (This lens does show green/red CA towards the
edges - correctable in raw import).

Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Alan Browne wrote
The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl Zeiss
quality.

I don't see any difference in sharpness but the Sony still shows a bit
of CA at the edges of the white highlights.

I'll look at that tomorrow but I'd be very surprised - this is a center
10% crop - CA? I doubt it. ... Fresh eyes tomorrow, SO is nagging me to
go watch Dexter ... (This lens does show green/red CA towards the
edges - correctable in raw import).

It's pretty minor. My method for comparing is to badly over-sharpen them
to emphasize stuff.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Alan Browne wrote
The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl
Zeiss quality.

I don't see any difference in sharpness but the Sony still shows a
bit of CA at the edges of the white highlights.

I'll look at that tomorrow but I'd be very surprised - this is a
center 10% crop - CA? I doubt it. ... Fresh eyes tomorrow, SO is
nagging me to go watch Dexter ... (This lens does show green/red CA
towards the edges - correctable in raw import).

It's pretty minor. My method for comparing is to badly over-sharpen them
to emphasize stuff.

I looked at it (in raw) at 400% and while there is a red reflection on
some edges, there is no corresponding green on opposite edges (typical
of CA).

I also oversharpened and see pretty much the same thing. I think it's
just the way the light reflects off of the coin.

Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Alan Browne wrote
The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl
Zeiss quality.

I don't see any difference in sharpness but the Sony still shows a
bit of CA at the edges of the white highlights.

I'll look at that tomorrow but I'd be very surprised - this is a
center 10% crop - CA? I doubt it. ... Fresh eyes tomorrow, SO is
nagging me to go watch Dexter ... (This lens does show green/red CA
towards the edges - correctable in raw import).

It's pretty minor. My method for comparing is to badly over-sharpen
them to emphasize stuff.

I looked at it (in raw) at 400% and while there is a red reflection on
some edges, there is no corresponding green on opposite edges (typical
of CA).

I also oversharpened and see pretty much the same thing. I think it's
just the way the light reflects off of the coin.

I'm not sure what it is either but it's not on the hassy version, or
less so. It could be axial/longitudinal CA which goes all the way around
highlights but that's normally purple/green for background/foreground.
Or it could be that in a center crop, it doesn't show sides, just a ring
of one color or another and the color differs by focus (the two have
slightly different focus distances as noted.
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials...ons/chromatic/
Heck, it could be the result of a more contrasty rendering.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam