The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Manual focus lenses

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

ok, Jack, I surrender :D
that 105mm DC optic sure looks sharp even wide open
very nice indeed

and your 50mm f/1.2 samples from the woods are so magic and dreamy
I am still thinking about these nice AI-S optics mounted on a Df body
if only the Df wasn't so ridiculously overpriced
but perhaps it can be had at a more reasonable price in a couple of years
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Steen -- funny you mention the Df for the 50/1.2… Right now, it's basically permanently bolted to my D800 non-E, so I have been thinking the same exact thing with a Df -- and a chrome one, of course! :D

Seriously, the 105DC has a few things going for it. Firstly, it does have AF, albeit slow and buzzy, but it works well. Secondly it's built like a solid piece of industrial equipment. And lastly of course, you can vary the bokeh effect and bias it to the front or rear depending on your needs -- though admittedly I almost never use this feature, preferring the natural balanced bokeh as it is. One other little tidbit is the DC is actually a G-B Achromat with the R channel focus slightly behind the B and G -- this supposedly is one of the reasons it renders human skin so well…
 

Y Sol

Active member
Some from this afternoon: Nikkor-S auto 1,4 from the early 60's on the D800, all at F1,4.
I love this lens, especially for video.







 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

:) whoa, some absolutely wonderful aberrations there, Y Sol

love it, and your beautiful captures as well :thumbup:

I wonder if it is still possible to get an AI kit and have it mounted somewhere in Europe ?
 

carstenw

Active member
One of my favorites as well, but unfortunately would probably not clear the mirror on most modern DSLRs...
With a little filing on the metal ring around the rear element, they can be made to work. I have such a lens, and use it on my D800. I also own the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4, and given the number of other ZFs I have, I might sell the Leica.
 

carstenw

Active member
Dave, I agree that it's really difficult -- actually I will say it's impossible -- to replicate in post the special look that spherical aberrations add to old, fast glass images. But that's precisely why I like the 50/1.2 and the 105DC :D

As re this Sigma 35, it's quite possibly too darn good wide open to deliver what I'm looking for, and I may in fact be stuck going after a 35 Lux R and converting it…
I am a bit surprised that no one mentions the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon in this thread. Beautiful boke, some aberrations, but very worth it. Personally, I find the boke in the Sigma a little "thick" and unpenetrable. Hard to describe properly. The f/1.4 lens is very different than the Zeiss 35/2, less vignetting, finer detail rendering, not so crunchy or punchy, more subtle.
 

carstenw

Active member
Whew, I have to find them! :) I am between two computers right now, and these days the good light is from about 12:30 to 12:38, but I should have something somewhere...

And this is one of the reasons I have some misgivings about my new A7: no EXIF. In the future, I will not be able to find anything after the fact.
 

carstenw

Active member
I have copied the post here, although it might be worthwhile heading over anyway to read the comments.

Well, I shuffled my day today and went out explicitly to test the Leica Summilux-R 35mm f/1.4 against the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2. The light today was very flat, but bright enough to provoke some CA in branches against sky. I tried to shoot at various distances, focus in various parts of the frame, and also tried to provoke some 3D (the latter largely without success in any significant way).

Keep in mind when reading this that I would rate both lenses as being among the best I have ever owned, both better than 9/10 (but both not reaching 10/10). Also:

  • This light is only one kind of light. Other kinds might yield different results.
  • This is only one style of shooting. Other styles yadda yadda.
  • I have only one copy of each. I believe them both to be good, but it is possible that one is better than the other.
  • My Leica-Nikon replacement mount appears not to quite reach infinity. It did on my D3, but not on my D800. I will have to adjust it.
  • I did not compensate for slight colour differences, since I do not want to fiddle much with Lightroom, for fear of introducing bias.
  • The focus point moves around a little, despite an effort to use the same focusing spot for each shot. I think in one shot it may even move a lot, due to operator error.

I would summarise the lenses as follows (some of which is personal, and thus debatable):

Mechanical:

  • The Leica is smaller (half the volume perhaps?) and has a built-in hood. The weight is not so different though.
  • The D800 interacts fully with the Zeiss, but does not even know when the Leica is mounted. I set up a non-CPU lens slot to get EXIF.
  • The Zeiss focus movement is lighter and smoother, but the travel is much shorter, and thus a bit less accurate.
  • The Zeiss focuses to 29cm or so, the Leica to 50cm or so.

Rendering:

  • The Leica has more resolution near the middle, less near the edges, when near wide open. In other words, the Zeiss's sharpness is more evenly distributed.
  • The Leica can have kinda messy corners wide open.
  • The Zeiss appears a little warmer, but see caveat above.
  • The Zeiss has a fair amount more CA, as much as double (measured by width in pixels in OOF regions).
  • The Zeiss has higher contrast, i.e. the Leica has more detail in the shadow regions.
  • The rendering characteristics make the Zeiss easier to see focus accurately with.
  • Both have field curvature, the Leica more, and I think in opposite directions. I am not sure if I am judging this right due to limitations of the samples I have available.
  • The Leica has quite a bit more vignetting, but it is often attractive.
  • When out of focus, the Leica gains "haze", the Zeiss "softness". It is hard to describe what I mean by this, but I see a distinct difference when focusing with live view. This helps make it harder to see if the Leica is in focus.
  • Stop for stop, the Leica exposes a tad darker (1/4 stop maybe), and carries more depth of field. The further away from the plane of focus, the more similar the amount of blur is. The Leica's DoF region is somehow fatter in the middle, but overall similar.
  • The Leica's depth of field rolls off slower (probably another way of saying the same thing).
  • The Leica has a couple of mm shorter focal length. I do not know which is closer to 35mm.
  • The Leica is sharper when stopped down. In fact, it is bloody sharp. The Zeiss is only very sharp :)
  • The Leica has noticeably less distortion.

It is not possible for me to overstate how much of this is just small tendencies, nothing that I would really notice, except by comparing directly. Both lenses are awesome, really amazing glass. A few of the differences are larger. Overall I would say that the Leica is better optically, but this does not necessarily make me prefer it. I am still undecided, but leaning very slightly towards preferring the Zeiss for its overall balance of pros and cons compared to the Leica (before seeing the results today, I preferred it even more, but the Leica is very impressive). Note that I own 6 other Zeiss ZF.2 lenses, so the Zeiss fits better in my collection. I am also a bit lazy and prefer electronically coupled lenses.

Here are some samples to demonstrate some of these points, Leica always first. These are all un-processed, other than importing into Lightroom 4.2, occasionally bumping the Leica exposure one notch, and then exporting. I do not know if Lightroom auto-corrects the Zeiss...

Not all have identical focusing points, so don't obsess about small differences (hard not to do when all there is is small differences :)). Also, most are unfortunately in portrait orientation, so I cannot make them as large as I otherwise would.

I do need to go out one day when the light is harsher, and I also need to compare skin tone rendering. I think the Leica may win both of those contests.































 

carstenw

Active member
Let me know if you want me to split this up a bit. These are shots I have previously selected for posting, but if you feel that there is something specific missing, I could take a look and see if I can find something. EXIF should be present, all are on the D800.

















 

white.elephant

New member
Oh and I was good at Tempe camera. Just rented a lens.

Funny story I saw Joe the owner for many years and we where talking about how long I been a customer. I guessed 20 reality 30 years. Joe said to me Guy your about the only guy left after all these years, everyone else out of business. Pretty interesting and sad at the same time.

Also Nikon pulled there whole repair from him after a million years doing there repairs and took it in house. For him that was hell as he was about one if the biggest Nikon repair shops in the states. Sucks
I lived in Mesa a few years ago and shopped there all the time. Loved that place.
 

Pierrard

New member
Well, you've convinced me of the 105/2.5 - found a seller and just need to get to him now.

Thanks for the wonderful example shots in this thread!
 

Pierrard

New member
I just got the 105/2.5 today, did some basic testing and I'm very excited to see in person what it can do! I'll post some pictures once I get home (after New Years),
 
Top