OLD vs. NEW ...

[foveonfan]

The only thing I can think of to add to this conversation is that, because I was not there during the moment of releasing the shutter, I have no way of knowing what Klaus actually saw with his own eyes. What was the contrast actually like?

For example, the last two sample images show quite a difference in contrast and I wonder which of the two lenses was more faithful to the reality?

From my own personal experience, I often have people remark that my photos appear to be a little "flat", when compared to their results that appear to be more "pleasing" because of the inherent additional contrast. The same commenters often stop and think about that when I reveal this.

I put it down to the spoiling effect that modern high contrast colour television imaging has impacted on people's visual expectations and their consequent willingness to "look" instead of "see".

Just my observation over the years, folks. You most certainly have your individual right to vary your mileage (kilometreage?) to accommodate your preferences.

Sincere regards, Jim R

 

[Guest .]

Hi All,

thanks for being interested in my little "Old vs. New" comparism.

Well, did I mention that I do not like test-pictures at all .... ... I really do not at all because all the forums are fed up with it. There are these chaps who really do nothing else than test-pictures instead of going for photos ... .

I am different ... I love photographs ... test shots are nothing more than a necessity to optimise once photo-equipment.

I love my photo toys a lot!!! Yes, they are rather toys to me than tools. I have never sold a lens or a cam in my life. I just gave it into good other hands.

Well what am I diong here???

A lot of nonsense has been written about the use of old (historic) glass on modern DSLR cameras. Most of the tests are worthless because those, who conduct them do not work precisely.

I am very glad, that high quality DSLR-photography is no longer a privilege of the rich but a chance to all those who like it.

Using old (and cheap) lenses is a very good chance to find access to photography. Those who can work lenses without AF and automatic aperture are closer to the basics of photography than those who just release the shutter with more comfortable equipment.....

I really think, that my children should learn it this way ....

I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THAT MODERN EQUIPMENT IS USELESS!

Neither do I intend to picture out, that the old things are better than modern SIGMA equipment ...

What I do not like are the scornful looks of those who always say, that cheap always means bad. I know what I am talking about ... now I too have the expensive toys ... nice to have ... but I can assure everybody who has just little money to spend on the issue, that tere are a lot of alternatives to save money ... not image quality.

OLD AND CHEAP CAN MEAN GOOD ...... IT DOES NOT HAVE TO!

Indeed, I have a very big "arsenal" of very old lenses available. I collected them over many years and I know each bit and piece exactly. None of these lenses was expensive or prestigious. In earlier years it was necessary to find out the pearls in the affordable range of photography ... now it is a hobby of mine .... value for money, you know.

What I am going to present here is the pearls among very many cheap "so-so" lenses!!!

Let me lose a word on my beloved 105mm EX MACRO.

It is a fantasically sharp and brilliant lens! The REVUENON is fine as well ... slow it down to 4.0 and it can compete. At full aperture the 105mm is unbeatable. Again ... I am comparing two crops above that cannot really be compared because the 105mm is lacking 30mm tele-lenght. It clearly wins the race in terms of sharpness, brilliance and contrast.

The 18-200mm DC OS is an amazing and fascinating lens that I would not want to miss anymore. I have read such amounts of rubbish about it ... well ... I am "fighting" for that lens since I have got it. I cannot understand people complayning about it ... let the pictures talk ... they do not lie.

The 80-400mm EX OS was accused again and again of being unshurp at full stretch ... nonsense ... it is sharp as a knife at 400mm .... most of the testshots ever done are blurred by the testers ... and so forth.

Finally ... I am showing very extreme crops in this thread, in order to picture out very very little differences in the lenses' performance. All of the shots so far are very high quality. Do not forget ... we are looking at the pixel here.

Let me go on with the 28mm race ... Old vs New ... to get LIGHT IN THE DARK


See you with nice pictures


Klaus

 

[Guest .]

28mm race ... Old vs. New ...

Hi all,

They used to be wide-angles in the 35mm film age. With our SIGMAs and their APS-C sensors they are normal-lenses.

Well there is no shortage of 28mm lenses on the second hand M42 market. An awful lot of different brands are available.

The affordable lenses are available at very little money ... I do have quite a number of such lenses.

I would like to present the "pearl" out of my 28mm-lenses here and compare it to modern equipment again.

The candidate OLD -- VIVITAR 28mm 2.5:

View attachment 1110

The VIVITAR is very easy to recognise because of its unique housing-shape.

It is by far not the most frequently manufactured 28mm lens from the "stone age" but it is not rare either. It was built over many many years right up to the end of the M42 era.
I got this comparatively recently from the internet and was fascinated from its very fine image quality at once....

The Opponents

SIGMA 18-200mm DC OS (3.5-6.3)
SIGMA 28-105mm Aspherical (2,8-4.0)

The full frames (all of them slowed down to 7.1 / 6,3):

Vivitar:

View attachment 1111

SIGMA 18-200mm (@28mm):

View attachment 1112

SIGMA 28-105mm (@28mm)

View attachment 1113

to be continued with the crops....

See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[Guest .]

CROPS ... 28mm

CROPS: (all slowed down to either 7.1 / 6.3)

VIVITAR:

CENTER:

View attachment 1114

EDGE:

View attachment 1115

SIGMA 18-200mm OS:

CENTER:

View attachment 1116

EDGE:

View attachment 1117

SIGMA 28-105mm:

CENTER:

View attachment 1118

EDGE:

View attachment 1119

to be continued with the full apertures ......


See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[Guest .]

28mm race ... Old vs. New ...FULL APERTURES

VIVITAR @ 2.5:

Full Frame:

View attachment 1120

CENTER CROP:

View attachment 1121

EDGE CROP:

View attachment 1122

SIGMA 28-105mm (@28mm / 2.8)

Full Frame:

View attachment 1123

CENTER CROP:

View attachment 1124

EDGE CROP:

View attachment 1125

See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[Guest .]

Conclusions .....

Hi again,

These are really very extreme crops (please compare to the full frame pictures) that again go to the pixels.

I find it very hard this time to spot differences at all. All shots are highest quality for my opinion.

What are your impressions?!

Thoes who would like to go back to the roots of photography ... doing without automatic aperture and autofocus.... can go for the VIVITAR ... (IMHO). The pictures do not tell it.

I can only hope that you find this interesting as well.

Again mentioned ... I am showing my best glass here. Such performance is no matter of course. I could prove as well, that I have average lenses in the low-budget range.

If you are interested I can go on with a 200mm Old vs. New race ... I do have a nice and cheap 200mm "stoneage" lens, too.

See you with nice pictures

Klaus

 

[laurence2]

Jim wrote: The only thing I can think of to add to this conversation is that, because I was not there during the moment of releasing the shutter, I have no way of knowing what Klaus actually saw with his own eyes. What was the contrast actually like?

For example, the last two sample images show quite a difference in contrast and I wonder which of the two lenses was more faithful to the reality?

A very good observation, Jim! Since I have no way of knowing what Klaus's eyes are seeing, there is no information available regarding the true contrastual elements of the image. My "preference" for the Revuenon in this case was simply from my own eyes and what I perceive to have the best contrast and overall appeal.

And, of course these "tests" are more for overall, everyday FUN than anything else. :z04_discosmilie:

Laurence

 

[laurence2]

Klaus wrote: These are really very extreme crops (please compare to the full frame pictures) that again go to the pixels.

I find it very hard this time to spot differences at all. All shots are highest quality for my opinion.

What are your impressions?!

I have to agree with this, Klaus. Frankly, all of the images look good enough for my eyes. So, I guess what I really like about these comparisons, is that PERHAPS my "old glass" (Takumars, Sears, Chinon, SMC Pentax, etc.) will be perfectly usable to the point that I can use them with confidence on the SD-14.

Part of the anticipated fun that I will expect, is to be able to compare all my old lenses in my incipient uses of the SD-14...and that is a GOOD thing!

Regarding the 200mm comparisons - bring them on! :z04_pc2:

Laurence

 

[Guest .]

200mm Race OLD vs. New .....

Hi All,

When searching the internet for an affordable and fast 200mm telephoto lens, quite a number of those lenses will be displayd on your computer monitor.

Open apertures form 4.0 to 3.5 are frequently offered and easy to have. Faster lenses normally become rather expensive.

I like my ALBINAR 200mm M42 tele.

View attachment 1129

I got the ALBINAR in very nice (like new) condition for very little money.

Its image performance is fairly well so that I so far did not go for a modern lens with comparable speed.

ALBINAR: (@6,3)

View attachment 1130

View attachment 1131

ALBINAR: (@3.5)

View attachment 1132

View attachment 1133

.... to be continued ....

 

[Guest .]

SIGMA 18-200 OS: (@6.3)

View attachment 1134

View attachment 1135

See you with nice pictures

Klaus