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)

So how about a SALT III, featuring old cine glass. For example, Baltars, Super Baltars, Cooke Panchro Series 2/3, Schneider Cine Xenons, Kinoptiks, Kowa Prominars, Lomos, old Angie and Cooke zooms. Or a SALT IV for old still glass like Canon FLs/FDs, Olympus. Minolta Rokkors, SMC Takumars, CZ Jena, etc... You know the good ole days when glass was still made with lead and radioactive isotopes.
 
Michael Panfeld said:
So how about a SALT III, featuring old cine glass. For example, Baltars, Super Baltars, Cooke Panchro Series 2/3, Schneider Cine Xenons, Lomos, old Angie and Cooke zooms. Or a SALT IV for old still glass like Canon FLs/FDs, Olympus. Minolta Rokkors, SMC Takumars, CZ Jena, etc... You know the good ole days when glass was still made with lead and radioactive isotopes.
Click to expand...

I am totally into this! Some of the CZ Jena glass is great, and the Minolta Rokkors...some doozies there! The 24 2.8 they designed for Leica. The Rokkor 28 F2 is awesome, and of course the 58 1.2 Rokkor is extremely famous.

I agree. This could be awesome.

Ans obv it would have to include Nikkor AIS lenses too, they are great.
 
Love the old glass idea.... it seems the better optics get the more people are looking backwards for something different.
 
Evin Grant said:
Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first:scared:

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)
Click to expand...

Haha. Sorry Evin, keep up the amazing work! May the SALT be with you!
 
Again, many thanks for the great work!
I checked the Nikon clips on youtube, but saw none of the dreaded image shift. Image shift is serious to me, when I see the bad examples of it. But none of my nikkors have it, and they are not new. So I guess one could go the Nikon route, but be prepared to buy new lenses more often than you would for stills work...
 
Evin Grant said:
Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first:scared:

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your work so far, Evin. Finish it and then catch your breath. But let me do you one better. Come to DC and conduct Salt III or IV here. There are plenty of Epics/Scarlet and old glass here. I think Nick Gardner has a set of K35s. I've got many of the others. I even have a projector.
 
Evin Grant said:
Leica R 90mm f2 Summicron
Leica90.jpg
Click to expand...

Definitely I would pick up Leica and Theresa.
 
Whew. Just wrote up and sent Evin my thoughts on the SALT II tests. Informative day and just a ton of information and notes to digest.
 
"Breathing performance is about the same for the three brands"

Typo or missing a line after?

It seems the zeiss is a bit better to me...
 
Hey Frederic, when are the test images going public?

Hey Frederic, when are the test images going public?

Michael Panfeld said:
So how about a SALT III, featuring old cine glass. For example, Baltars, Super Baltars, Cooke Panchro Series 2/3, Schneider Cine Xenons, Lomos, old Angie and Cooke zooms. Or a SALT IV for old still glass like Canon FLs/FDs, Olympus. Minolta Rokkors, SMC Takumars, CZ Jena, etc... You know the good ole days when glass was still made with lead and radioactive isotopes.
Click to expand...

I was part of a test with Frederic Goodich that compared the "look" of several sets of popular cine primes including the Super Baltars on both Epic and Alexa. I had the great fortune to be invited to screen the first pass at compiling the images we shot and even amongst the newer primes there were obvious "personality quirks". I believe that Frederic has an agenda for an article and for screening the footage from the test, but I don't know any details. What was clearly obvious was that if you're going to shoot vintage glass like the Super Baltars to get a certain "feel" just be sure you can live with just how soft they look - particularly noticeable on a camera like the Epic.

On a side note, the Leica Cs were spectacular and IMHO have set the bar - so much real resolution, so smooth. That reminds me, gotta go buy a lottery ticket...

Cheers - #19
 
Ryan Lalonde said:
"Breathing performance is about the same for the three brands"

Typo or missing a line after?

It seems the zeiss is a bit better to me...
Click to expand...


OKAY...

So we have been Breathing every day since Birth, but if a Lens does it a little, all of a sudden is a problem? I don't get it... ;)
 
Evin Grant said:
Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first:scared:

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)
Click to expand...

Poor Evin :) again thanks a ton for salt II :)
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
OKAY...

So we have been Breathing every day since Birth, but if a Lens does it a little, all of a sudden is a problem? I don't get it... ;)
Click to expand...

Haha. Maybe, but I like what Ryan is winking at. There are a lot of Leica and Nikon fanboys on Reduser. Those lenses get a lot of love, a lot of forgiveness. Which is great. But Zeiss lenses, especially the stills, not so much. Lets face it, they have as many haters on these boards as fans! Put it this way. I'm sure if the Leica R's breathed the best, we probably woulda heard about it...

And I'm not saying any of this is inentional, it just Zeiss doesn't have the kind of following that Nikon or Leica does. Leica has always been more refined, aristocartic. And Nikon more rebellious, interesting. Zeiss plays it safe. So they are more easily overlooked.

Or am I just being too precious, as a self proclaimed Zeiss fan?!
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #95
Zeiss are great, the Standard speed T2.1 primes are probably my favorite affordable cine lenses. I still miss the set I sold to Martin.
And the wide (21,25 & 28mm) zeiss ZF lenses were probably the best of the wide primes. So I don't think they're getting bashed. Also consider that they have been the defacto standard lenses for cine-mod for a while now, so they have a reputation to live up to. That being said I would choose the 50 macro over the 50mm 1.4 and I also think they should release an f2 version of the 85/90, the 1.4 is (possibly intentionally) soft for my taste.
 
Evin Grant said:
Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first:scared:

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)
Click to expand...

I got B-Speeds, K-35s, Angenieux 25-250, and some other random stuff floating around here. When the time comes... hit me up. And thanks again for doing this test. Its very appreciated.
 
Evin Grant said:
Part 5: Impressions

Matt Duclos:

LEICA.... Mostly because their optics are technically poor.
Click to expand...

Hello Matt,

Can you elaborate on this line?

"Technically poor" seems a bit ambiguous to me.
Poor, as in, old design, or poor, as in, not sharp etc.?
 
Evin Grant said:
Zeiss are great, the Standard speed T2.1 primes are probably my favorite affordable cine lenses. I still miss the set I sold to Martin.
And the wide (21,25 & 28mm) zeiss ZF lenses were probably the best of the wide primes. So I don't think they're getting bashed. Also consider that they have been the defacto standard lenses for cine-mod for a while now, so they have a reputation to live up to. That being said I would choose the 50 macro over the 50mm 1.4 and I also think they should release an f2 version of the 85/90, the 1.4 is (possibly intentionally) soft for my taste.
Click to expand...

Haha. You're a good guy Evin! You make me want to get the Contax 50 1.7 now, because it's certainly less soft wide open than the CZ 1.4, and I'm guessing its older brother ZF 1.4. And the bokeh is different than on the 1.4. Now I'm gunna get it. And Contax also has an 85 2.8 that is super, super sharp at 2.8, but at that point the 85 1.4 catches up.

And fair enough. You are right, the Zeiss are the standard to be compared against. Thanks for saying that. I've invested so much in Contax that I get petulantly protective, which is just lame.

I have a CZ 135 f2 that I'd love to test. It's not that much sharper than the 135 2.8, but its supposed to have a certain mojo that still guys love. Its probably that "softness" wide open you guys hate! And I have a feeling it's optimized for portraits as well, whereas the 2.8 is the workhorse.

Anwyay. Again. Thanks for doing these tests. Totally amazing.
 
On paper, the Leica R lenses don't perform too well. Their sharpness is extremely subjective. Sharpness is a combination of contrast and resolution, neither of which the Leica R lenses can nail simultaneously. This is similar to what I've seen on a lot of RPP lenses. On a test projector, you can focus the image to obtain the best contrast but the resolution is lost. If you focus for the best resolution, the contrast suffers. It's one or the other. And when you split the difference and pick that half way medium point, you get the "Leica Look" which is, from a technical standpoint, not an accurate image. But it certainly does look nice. I'll take some photos to explain this and post shortly. Or maybe I'll hi-jack some REDUser traffic and put it on my blog. Either way, I'll share with all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top