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)

KETCH ROSSi said:
Yeah, unfortunately all STILL glass manufacturer, the absolute WORST been SIGMA, have a variable quality check, meaning that no one lens is equal to the other, and for this is why I buy my lenses in 3's, as I replied to Mark, I have been doing this since I one day sow a same shot on a same camera on a same lens, taken by a fellow photographer on my shoot, and his was much nicer, so I said, one a minute I know you have done nothing differently, and I know you can't be that much better then me, sorry for the arrogance here, so we tested each lens, BINGO!!

So yeah expect QUALITY CHECK issues with all your Still glass manufacturers, and check your lenses, I do with al mines, and the "L" glass I have now are the selections of the best of 3's.

I hav not yet found this issue with Leica M or S series glass.
Click to expand...

Ketch, do you have an easy setup to check the lenses, or how do you do it? Just shoot some charts?
 
Jarred Land said:
it would be a good business for someone out there to setup as a dealer with all the lens manufactures and get a shipment of lenses, send the marginal ones back and sell the rockstar ones for a slight premium. I'd be a customer.
Click to expand...

Right on!
 
Patrick Grossien said:
Ketch, do you have an easy setup to check the lenses, or how do you do it? Just shoot some charts?
Click to expand...

Shooting its okay, but painfully time consuming, I would use a lab and proper test gear fi one was to do this with a ton of lenses, I would not have time to do this again, not here not now, but when in Cali, even last year I did had plenty of time, well, kind of in the early part of the year, till Epic M8 arrived, then all bets were off, been traveling ever since, and never stopped, so no more time to go buy Still glass and have to test each one, unless its Leica, then all I have to test is the different models in the same focal, to see which one is bets... ;)

But its either way too complex and many steps process to list here how I do it, and how it needs to be done, with or without gear to test resolution of the actual lens.
 
Evan-

So what happened with the Zeiss 85? A reflection? Could you please explain this a bit?
 
Jarred Land said:
it would be a good business for someone out there to setup as a dealer with all the lens manufactures and get a shipment of lenses, send the marginal ones back and sell the rockstar ones for a slight premium. I'd be a customer.
Click to expand...
I've been wanting this as well. I know there's a member of this forum who would probably be a great candidate to do this (hint, hint) but they are also extremely busy so not sure if it would fit their business plan. But it would be great. Basically a seal of approval that says this lens meets or exceeds the criteria for professional use. Of course, there would still possibly be some subjective aspects to it but much better than hoping to get a good sample from retail stores.
 
Jarred Land said:
it would be a good business for someone out there to setup as a dealer with all the lens manufactures and get a shipment of lenses, send the marginal ones back and sell the rockstar ones for a slight premium. I'd be a customer.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea, but how would you actually do it? Who is going to agree to take returns of 2/3 or more? Is it reasonable to expect that Canon would support this business model and certify you as a dealer, taking back those returns directly? Supporting that would mean acknowledging as fact the idea that 2/3 of their flagship lenses are somehow not up to par. I think the business model would have to be very carefully crafted to pass muster.

Are we talking about a "Cine Certified" kind of identifier? That seems to send mixed messages, since the lenses are mechanically sub-par for much of what we know as cine work.

I don't ask these Q's to be critical... Just thinking publicly. Who has the answers?

I suppose if Duclos were to do it, they could rehouse a portion of the crappy ones as opposed to returning them all. That might make it work. What say you Matt, are you a candidate to be a Canon dealer? Are you already? Pardon my ignorance, if you please.

Demand for the less expensive "certified" lenses might likely out pace the finer rehoused lenses, throwing this model out of whack. You would still have to find a place for the rejects to go... Discounted sales? That might mean a higher premium for the selects...

Maybe you wouldn't have to return or discount the ones that can't make the select grade, just sell 'em as per usual depending upon how bad they were. Maybe you would have to bin them like processors; selects, standard, and discounted with only those truly unacceptable lenses going back. But once you have culled the good lenses from the herd, how would you define a "standard" grade and who would want to buy a marginal discounted lens if you knew it wasn't entirely sharp? I guess you would have to test that one out.

Sorry again for thinking aloud and off topic. Enjoying the SALT results guys. Keep it coming. :-)
 
Last edited:
KETCH ROSSi said:
Shooting its okay, but painfully time consuming, I would use a lab and proper test gear fi one was to do this with a ton of lenses, I would not have time to do this again, not here not now, but when in Cali, even last year I did had plenty of time, well, kind of in the early part of the year, till Epic M8 arrived, then all bets were off, been traveling ever since, and never stopped, so no more time to go buy Still glass and have to test each one, unless its Leica, then all I have to test is the different models in the same focal, to see which one is bets... ;)

But its either way too complex and many steps process to list here how I do it, and how it needs to be done, with or without gear to test resolution of the actual lens.
Click to expand...

Hehe... figured it would be this way. Thanks a lot anyway! Get these tested in a lab of course would be the best way, but as you said, it's not always possible to get this done. :)
 
Patrick Grossien said:
Hehe... figured it would be this way. Thanks a lot anyway! Get these tested in a lab of course would be the best way, but as you said, it's not always possible to get this done. :)
Click to expand...

Well, the way I used to do it till two years ago, was to set the camera on a tripod, and set up a shot, then place one lens after the other in MF on the camera and shoot away, then see the images on a large Screen, not at a 100%, that is worthless, you have to develop an eye to see the difference while looking at the image in full screen as a hole, not in pieces, and as you swap back and forth image to image you see the differences, which some times aren't worth chosing one lens vs the other, more then once I got 3 great copies against the other and then at times you get the one that is clearly not as good.

On the cameras were Micro adjustment is possible of course you got to do more work and micro adjust each lens before you shoot.

Same thing with Cine lenses, you need to calibrate them, and makes sure that the back focus is set properly on the camera, and not touched.

But today there are far more accurate and faster method, just need to invest quite some cash on that gear... ;)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #73
At least with Canon and Nikon the cost of becoming a dealer and buying, testing and selling enough lenses to make it worth while is probably only practical for an existing dealer with the customers to turn over 50+ lenses a month. Also the premium would probably be at least 20% considering the labor invloved with testing (which would really require a lens projector in a dedicated room) and paying a highly skilled tech to painstakingly go through 25 lenses to get 5 premium ones. Even then I'm not sure the endeavor would be profitable given the difference in performance is not going to be that noticable on screen.
 
Evin Grant said:
At least with Canon and Nikon the cost of becoming a dealer and buying, testing and selling enough lenses to make it worth while is probably only practical for an existing dealer with the customers to turn over 50+ lenses a month. Also the premium would probably be at least 20% considering the labor invloved with testing (which would really require a lens projector in a dedicated room) and paying a highly skilled tech to painstakingly go through 25 lenses to get 5 premium ones. Even then I'm not sure the endeavor would be profitable given the difference in performance is not going to be that noticable on screen.
Click to expand...

What do you think I do every day...
 
Matthew Duclos said:
What do you think I do every day...
Click to expand...

But you don't yet offer select lenses in the original manufacturer's housing, or do you? Is that because it doesn't seem profitable, or because you are focused on the best cine gear you can offer? Is this something that might change with the proliferation of Red mounts?
 
Hey guys I want to commend you all on these tests! As a Contax Zeiss fan, I'm curious how the Contax lenses would have fared vs the ZF/ZEs. Though its common to assume they would perform the same, that's not always the case. Its well documented in the Zeiss community that these lenses didn't necessarily improve when they were modernized to ZF/ZE, they just became "different". Most of the differences are subtle, but still noticeable. Nonetheless, I'm shocked that Leica has more contrast, as that's what Zeiss is famous for, it's "micro contrast". I'm also shocked that the 50 1.4 was so poor. It must be a bad copy. The Zeiss 50 1.4 is renowned in the still community for how sharp it is. But it's known to be soft wide open. It should be sharp by F2. The Contax 50 1.7 for example is well known for being sharper wide open than the 1.4.

Nonetheless, if you consider that Contax Zeiss lenses have superior mechanics to Nikon, Canon, and ZF's (in that they focus the right way and have manual apertures) AND...considering the fact that they look less digital and more organic than the ZFs...I strongly wonder how they would have fared overall.

I'm guessing better than the Leica R's, but that's just MY personal bias. Haha!

Anyway. In the end, if you are buying still glass, you are making a compromise. No matter what. I for one for example would never buy Leica still glass because it has a painterly, beautiful bokeh that I actually don't like. You can't get rid of it! Its always trying to make everything look gorgeous! I can understand WHY people like it, but I prefer the cleanness of Zeiss. But thats just me.

I'm jealous of all the testing you guys did gentlemen. That's a WHOLE lotta lenses! One day, when I come out to LA, we gotta test out my 20 Contax Lenses. There are some beauties in there that will BLOW your mind.
 
PS at least in Contax Zeiss, the 85 1.4 is specifically designed to as a portrait lens, so your observation that its lack of contrast would be "good on faces" is probably intentional. Whereas the 100 F2, for example, though a very similar focal length, was designed as a landscape lens and is much snappier.

Another thing to note is that the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are all known to have a specific "softness" about them wide open. At least in Contax. The softness is well loved by still photographers, as almost an effect they can engage when shooting wide open, and gotten rid of by 2.8. Or even F2 in some cases. I'm guessing this is similar to how a lot of DPs I've read here describe'd how the Super Speeds perform, right?

I'm just trying to give these Zeiss lenses a fair shake!

But again, every one of these sets is a compromise:

1) CANON: terrible AF focusing mechanics, poor CA, no manual aperture
2) NIKON: terrible AF focusing mechanics, focus the wrong way.
3) LEICA R: flare terribly, mediocre edge
4) Zeiss ZF: focus the wrong way, soft wide open in center.
5) Contax: soft wide open in center....Anything else?? (needs to be tested).

I'd love to bring my Contax on the next test guys...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top