Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by zapatista, Oct 22, 2012.
I'm interested. I rented the 75mm and liked it a lot but decided it's not worth the cost to me for a long prime. I'd rather invest the money in the 35-100 for something much more usable. The 75mm is a fantastic lens truly, I loved the images I did get from it. I'm leaning towards a legacy prime a bit shorter like the Minolta 58mm f/1.2 or the Konica 57 f/1.2. Waiting for a deal to arise, so if you can spark my interest in an 85 .
I'd like to see it too, but I cant help but think that its going to be the same as every tried and true legacy v.s native comparison.....both lenses are sharp but the native lens wins by a margin because of better controlled spherical and chromatic abberation.
I hope I'm wrong though, because I always cross my fingers for the underdog
I'd love to see that comparo. I have other Hexanons and love them.
I'd like to see that comparison. I just picked up a Contax 85mm (but f2.8). I'll play with that for a while to see if I like the focal length.:tongue:
Ok...I'll try my hand at it tonite (US MDT) and a post couple of series. Just goofing around with hand-held shots last night, the 75mm is sharper to the corners fully open. Most of the Hexanons I have are a little soft at f1.8 or wide open (no surprise as mentioned before), especially the 40mm. Thanks for all the responses.
A couple at f1.8 added to 1st post.
Crops from the EM-5...sorry my cropping/editing skills out of LR leave a good bit for future improvement.
Olympus 75mm f1.8 @f2.8
Konica Hexanon 85mm email@example.com
Olympus 60mm macro f2.8 @2.8
While a comparison is good, it is difficult to get the setup correct. The images you have posted so far have white balance far off neutral. And furthermore they are not focussed, or at least I don't see the point of focus.
I don't mean to be a downer, but unless the shots are done with great exactitude, small differences in lens qualities will be masked by experimental variables. As I know from experience!
I did some updated auto focus snaps....the f1.8 shots with the Oly 75mm are out of focus posted (crop and full). This has been a good learning experience.
EM-5-Auto White Balance/ISO 200 (base)
Aperture "A" mode
Manual focus on the "base" of the cathedral (2 shots each)
USB trigger used while I was standing 3 feet away after focus confirmation.
2 shots taken with each lens at each Aperture setting with focus confirmed on LCD (not) EVF-14x magnification
8 feet away from target-based on distance scale on the Konica focus ring (not measured).
White balance may be off, but not much, I was/am more concerned with the effect of the lighting-which could skew the results. rparmer-your feedback/criticism is much appreciated.
When I have done similar tests I have focused manually. Best to try three and take the best of. My opinion is that auto focus is for emergencies or live gigs where action is moving too fast for manual. This opinion has not changed since the eighties.
Updates on Testing
Well Here's a quick couple of pictures of the items tested. I've included a link to my flickr page with center crops of all lenses with stops ranging from f1.8 to f8.0. My apologies in advance about the presentation but I still think there's some useful information contained in the comparatives, though I still need to figure how to edit them to make the crops easier to directly compare. I'm happy to send anyone raw files who wants them. My quick take from the comparatives....the Olympus 75mm f1.8 is decently sharper wide open then the Konica Hexanon AR 85mm f1.8 but by f2.8 there's not much difference. The Olympus 75mm is sharper than the Oly 60mm macro at f2.8 (kinda a surprise) and the huge Canon FD is pretty awesome at f5.6. I think the Canon is sharper wide open up and down the focal length range compared to the Panasonic 100-300mm...though I haven't tested them side by side.
Flickr: quetzalcoa's Photostream
Beasts of Burden:
That is very, very useful info. Thank you so much for your hard work (and it is indeed a lot of hard work!).
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.