Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

SALT II results... (Part 1,2,3,4 Bokeh, Breathing & Flare and Part 5: Impressions)

It was an absolute blast participating this time around. Great guys... great lenses. These results as very handy, but what was that phrase uttered? A pistol is not a rifle? :)
 
Jiri Vrozina said:
Saw tests by K.R. And others between Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 14-24 where Zeiss completely beat Nikon zoom. But not according to you.
Click to expand...

I've read the "K.R." test you're referring to. It's completely bogus. It is not really a comparison of lenses at all.

Evin, thank you again for organizing this. I'm really interested to hear your 'aesthetic' analysis of the lenses.
 
Hey Evin, thanks for doing this.

I'm sad and glad to hear that the Canons tested showed just as much CA as the set I have. That is my least favorite part about them. (And that the 85 is focus by wire). On one hand I wanted to believe that I would be able to sell a couple and buy possibly better ones but it seems like they'll probably be similar. I did a comparison on thedigitalpicture on charts and had very similar findings to what you guys have regarding Canon/Nikon/Zeiss. By my count the Canons had worse CA and Edge sharpness but consistently slightly better center sharpness and sometimes had less vignetting. The Zeiss were worse all the way around let alone while stopping down the Canons and comparing at the same f-stop. The results look pretty clear over there (on charts at least which only tell a part of the story). What I really would like to see is the exact same tests done with ultra primes and master primes and maybe even Cookes. The basic thing I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA. Fortunately the easily swappable Canon and PL Mounts of the Epic are so quick that anyone can do very thorough tests at a rental house.
 
Justin McAleece said:
I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA.
Click to expand...

- Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

-Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

- Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

- It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.





Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Damn Evin... this is rad! Really looking forward to the rest of the SALT II results. Thanks.
 
Thank you Damn Evin!
 
Good work guys...

No surprise on the Leica R glass, this glass is no doubt the glass that performs less favorably to the Leica family, were currently the number one in Still glass is the S2 series, followed by the M series glass,
and even so with some manufacturers some glass of the old family is better then the new, it is not so with Leica, and buying the absolute latest generation of a given Focal will give you the very best.

I'm actually surprise not to see the Nikon have better scores, I now you too well Evin, NIKON GUY... ;)

But in Nikon's defense there is to say the obvious which you well know, which is that even Nikon, as any other company that has a Mass Production facility for their Lenses, their glass will have Quality Control issues, so possibly some of this glass was not their best?

Canon I'm with you on almost all but the 85mm f/1.2L II, this glass is absolutely phenomenal, and here again I promise you did get a copy that was not one of the good ones, and not to defend this particular focal and aperture it brings, but it is to be understood, that one can not have a SUPER FAST lens and also expect it to be STELLAR in its sharpness edge to edge, you need to stop it down to get the results, and this lenses are built to give you the chance to shoot wide open at this speeds to create something unique of an image, just like in the new Leica Noctilux 50mm .95, its insane, and it cost almost "3" times the price of the 50mm 1.4 ASHP yet is not as sharp.

Too bad you didn't trow the new 24mm TS lens, which is the absolute Sharpest and most contrasty 24mm even build by canon to date, will see what their new 24mm f/14L II will bring.

Zeiss, I don't say anything about this glass, is simply disappoints.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #29
Ketch, that was the 24mm 1.4 L II.

Honestly I do feel the lenses tested represented a pretty realistic cross section of what the average buyer will encounter. The 85mm 1.2L preformed great for such a high speed optic. I've used a few samples and all have been sharp in the center and all have showed a real propensity to CA, especially purple fringing wide open. The new Nikon G 85mm f1.4 also showed some CA wide open, it's the nature of high speed lenses. You well know that to completely correct this at 1.2-1.4 you need to go to the massively corrected designs of the MPs or Leica Summilux Cs.
 
Matt Uhry said:
- Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

-Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

- Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

- It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.





Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Pretty good observation and conclusion Matt!!!

Also I found long ago that the latest Leica R prime and zoom designs (discontinued anyway) perform very well optically.
 
Evin Grant said:
Ketch, that was the 24mm 1.4 L II.

Honestly I do feel the lenses tested represented a pretty realistic cross section of what the average buyer will encounter. The 85mm 1.2L preformed great for such a high speed optic. I've used a few samples and all have been sharp in the center and all have showed a real propensity to CA, especially purple fringing wide open. The new Nikon G 85mm f1.4 also showed some CA wide open, it's the nature of high speed lenses. You well know that to completely correct this at 1.2-1.4 you need to go to the massively corrected designs of the MPs or Leica Summilux Cs.
Click to expand...


Oh yes indeed Evin, I see it now, but yeah, again, the 24 TS is far superior to al current 24mm.

True to the bone, that with super fast glass one can't expect to have also the sharpest glass edge to edge, unless of course... MP's or LSCP's... ;)

Again, your guys deserve and other thank you, and I do say it with meaning, even so I'm not the one to benefit from this tests, it is great that members of this community take time off to continue to bring their support here... ;)
 
I think your test is fantastic... and quite accurate. I really like people sharing there findings. :)
I've done similar tests over the months, with MP's, RPP, Ziess and the Canons.. and I agree with everything you say about the stills lenses V's Actual cinema PL glass,

However...

One crucial thing that every one is forgetting...
Irrespective of the obvious faults of the stills camera lens and the positives of hand made PL Cinema glass, the fact is that one is cheap as hell and the other is 10-20k more...

So putting bad focus pulling control aside, slight aberrations of colour (which I've seen in most PL glass that I have used over the years) and the fact that stills glass has breathing, etc... The facts are these (even though I own a lot of my own PL Glass and will use it to my dying day) Optically... a $990 dollar production line made plastic stills lens up against say a $22,000 dollar a beautifully hand made ARRI / ZIESS Master Prime or Leica lens I don't think is a very fair, bit like David and Goliath.

Optically with our similar testing, Images ZOOMED up to 400 & 800% we started seeing flaws in some of the stills lenses...(not all) , But then again I've seen similar flaws in PL glass as well so bad that I have removed the lens from the camera...
So really who watches anything blown up 800% anyway... No one. Only Pixel peepers..
I just finished watching a blurry film 5 hours ago... The Grey.. all shot on Cinema lenses, blurry, soft... grainy.. But over all the movie look great. So were the lens rises to the heights, the cinematography, bad film prints and blurry projection will kill those efforts anyway.

The end result as I can see from your testing is this:
Mechanically PL cinema lenses will win all day every day... because they are built to do so... We all agree on that.
Optically there is buggar all in it... I have ZIESS glass, ARRI glass, Cooke glass and I see hardly anything in it. and in some cases the Stills glass is sharper and cleaner than most of our PL lenses unless you talking about the top range Leicas. We all agree on this...

But the fact still stands... A $990 dollar lens Vs 22,000 dollar lens.... Really?
Locked off shot of an actor, Car, product... what ever the subject... Will the difference be that much. My 20 years of shooting says NO.

question is.... Are you going to get a $21,010 better image... Answer NO.
Question is your PL glass going to last you a life time.. probably yes. (knowing that I have 30 year old Nikon glass that is as sharp as the day I purchased it) and Canon glass being so cheap you could by a lens once a year for about 20 years and still be on top.

If I have a job with focus pulling needed for most of the job, then PLs are coming out to play. No compromise..

If I have a job were I simply don't need to pull focus, Just focus once on the subject, product etc and press record, then Ill use the stills glass... Why not..

But were I heading with this is this... Optically... A great set of bright stills primes and ZOOMs totalling maybe 15-20k (NEW)... compared to a good optical set of PL primes and ZOOMS totalling 100, 150, 200, 300k (NEW)
I think we can all say safely that stills glass (optically) is still worth owning and using for most projects, Including 4k feature films.

Great test by the way.
I do like to see people put energy into there testing and better than that sharing there findings... Congrats.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Canon I'm with you on almost all but the 85mm f/1.2L II, this glass is absolutely phenomenal,
Click to expand...

Hey Ketch, I went through 3 85mm 1.2s before I got a good one...
My 16-35 ZOOMs completely smashes my friends one..

One thing about cheap production lines lenses, compared to expensive hand made lenses is the QA on both...
But once again comparing a 900 dollar disposal lens against a $20,000 dollar lens... what do you expect. :)

I love my 85mm 1.2 as well.... and my 85 1.3 ZIESS Super speed. :)
Some jobs, I never take it off. If i want a wide... I walk backwards, tight, I move forwards...
 
Mark Toia said:
Hey Ketch, I went through 3 85mm 1.2s before I got a good one...
My 16-35 ZOOMs completely smashes my friends one..

One thing about cheap production lines lenses, compared to expensive hand made lenses is the QA on both...
But once again comparing a 900 dollar disposal lens against a $20,000 dollar lens... what do you expect. :)

I love my 85mm 1.2 as well.... and my 85 1.3 ZIESS Super speed. :)
Some jobs, I never take it off. If i want a wide... I walk backwards, tight, I move forwards...
Click to expand...


He he, same here Mark, but I have gotten used to, and in fact when I bought al my recent Still Glass I always get 3 of each, then keep the best of 3... ;)
 
Hey Evin can you comment on the Canon 70-200 2.8L II as to how well it holds focus through zooms. I have heard that it is not parfocal. Mostly interested in setting focus at 200mm and pulling back to desired focal length and leaving it there. Does it hold focus on that move?
Thanks and great test. Looking forward to the rest!
Mike
 
Correcting image shift in post?

Correcting image shift in post?

Many thanks for the test and posts!!
Has anyone tried to correct image shift from still lenses in post? Evin, I understand your point about the difference between still and cine lenses regarding this, but is it not correctible in post? -Providing e.g. shooting in 5k and framing a bit wider to allow for cropping as a result of needing to correct the image shift. May or may not be practical. I would love to use the Optimos, but do not have the budget for owning them. Plus they are heavy for most of my purposes.
 
It is very time consuming to do these tests and these folks getting together and pooling resources for these tests to share the results for all deserve many thanks and appreciation.

Contemporary lenses (stills or cine) lenses all look very good. If you examine the same image shot between a 900 dollar stills lens vs a 20k cine lens most people would be hard pressed to tell you which was which.... there just wont be much of a difference. In some cases a new "stills" lens might be sharper and have more contrast then a counter part "cine" lenses.

Having said that most here are making motion/video products and that's where the differences comes to play as some have pointed out. Mark said it well, if no focus pulls are needed, why not use a stills lens? Same can be said for a zoom, if you want just a variable focal length lens for convenience then no problem, but if you need a powered smooth zoom you probably cant do it with a stills lens. A stills "zoom" lens is not really a zoom like in the "cine" class, they don't track properly, usually won't hold focus, telescoping barrels, short zoom throw rotation... the mechanics are not designed for this use. Breathing can also become an issue for focus pulls, or changing direction in a focus pull sometimes shifts the image as Evin pointed out.

I look forward to seeing the next round about the mechanics of these lenses.

Thanks much Evin and those that participated.
 
Evin Grant said:
If you mean Ken Rockwell, well, then you need to consider your source. Organic looks is an opinion, I felt all the lenses in the test produced a look that could be described as organic, depending upon your criteria. Overall the lenses were more similar than not.

The Zeiss 21mm did quite well overall, but at least on the projector it was not sharper than the 14-24 Nikkor, although on an Epic you probably couldn't tell one from the other on sharpness alone.
Click to expand...

Ok here it is and i can supply 2 other test results.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm
it is far more comprehensive test.
Please stop refering to Zeiis 21mm as 20mm it is confusing....
Regards
jiri
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Good work guys...

No surprise on the Leica R glass, this glass is no doubt the glass that performs less favorably to the Leica family, were currently the number one in Still glass is the S2 series, followed by the M series glass,
and even so with some manufacturers some glass of the old family is better then the new, it is not so with Leica, and buying the absolute latest generation of a given Focal will give you the very best.

I'm actually surprise not to see the Nikon have better scores, I now you too well Evin, NIKON GUY... ;)

But in Nikon's defense there is to say the obvious which you well know, which is that even Nikon, as any other company that has a Mass Production facility for their Lenses, their glass will have Quality Control issues, so possibly some of this glass was not their best?

Canon I'm with you on almost all but the 85mm f/1.2L II, this glass is absolutely phenomenal, and here again I promise you did get a copy that was not one of the good ones, and not to defend this particular focal and aperture it brings, but it is to be understood, that one can not have a SUPER FAST lens and also expect it to be STELLAR in its sharpness edge to edge, you need to stop it down to get the results, and this lenses are built to give you the chance to shoot wide open at this speeds to create something unique of an image, just like in the new Leica Noctilux 50mm .95, its insane, and it cost almost "3" times the price of the 50mm 1.4 ASHP yet is not as sharp.

Too bad you didn't trow the new 24mm TS lens, which is the absolute Sharpest and most contrasty 24mm even build by canon to date, will see what their new 24mm f/14L II will bring.

Zeiss, I don't say anything about this glass, is simply disappoints.
Click to expand...

Zeiss make some great lenses..21mm f2.8, new 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and new macro 100 f2.0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top