Recently I tested two Fujifilm lenses on the GFX 100S. Since I can't afford a full fleet of native glass my plan is to use my modest collection of fine vintage (manual focus) glass. I have been happy to use a selection of these on the full-frame (135 format) Panasonic S5. But not all of these lenses will support the larger sensor size. I expect some vignetting, especially wide open. Or the borders could simply be too weak (e.g. blurry with aberrations).
So... bring on the testing! I lined up a selection of Contax-Yashica mount Carl Zeiss lenses, namely:
- Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/28
- Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50
- Carl Zeiss Makro Planar T* 2,8/60 C
- Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2,8/85
- Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/100
And a few M42 screw mount lenses:
- Carl Zeiss Jena DDR Pancolar auto 1,8/50 MC
- Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Domiplan 2.8/50
- Pentacon 2.8/135
Pentax will have to wait since the adapter I purchased is apparently on a world tour.
Test method
I shoot my bookshelf at about 110 cm distance. This subject has a variety of colours and textures while maintaining consistent diffused sunlight. This test won't tell us anything about flare, bokeh, etc. but is useful for acuity and (most important) the behaviour across the frame. Here's the setup:
- Tripod mounted with image stabilisation is off.
- Timed shutter release used.
- Manual focus using magnification feature.
- ISO at constant 1000.
- File format is lossless compressed 14-bit RAW.
- Developed in Affinity 2 with default settings.
This test provides a baseline but not optimal images. Any real-world development would produce better photographs in terms of desired colours, contrast, sharpness, etc.
I stacked the 11662 x 8746 pixel images and then reduced the overall size by 50%. Then I cropped to a 1000 pixel square in the areas of interest. Unlike previously, this test was not made to compare lenses but rather to evaluate each lens on its own terms.
I shot each lens series twice: first with focus in the centre (on the "Mc" in "McInnes") then with focus at the extreme left side (on the "c" in "Uncommon"). This varied a bit with the different focal lengths.
Click on each image below to expand to full size. As always, I recommend viewing on a computer, not a mobile screen.
Test results
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50
The lens is sharp and contrasty in the centre of the frame by f/2. It has noticeable light falloff at the sides but nowhere vignettes. The quality is excellent by f/4.
Carl Zeiss Makro Planar T* 2,8/60 C
Usable wide and excellent at f/4. For some reason it's hazy already at f/8 even though diffraction shouldn't matter until about f/16. This is consistent at the centre and side of the frame. I always considered this an under-rated lens since the 1:2 macro is darned useful.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2,8/85
I've reviewed this lens as a most compact 85mm that is also an excellent performer. It is simply sharp all the time while giving that special Sonnar contrast. Now I know that it maintains this performance even on the larger sensor. Wow.
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/100
While usable wide open I have always known that this lens benefits from stopping down once. Overall I prefer the rendering to the Sonnar but this is a big heavy lens that I rarely take out. Looking at this performance on the larger sensor it's clear that it prefers the 135 format sensor. Sonnar wins all the way.
Carl Zeiss Jena DDR Pancolar auto 1,8/50 MC
There's so much hype over different M42 lenses especially those made in the DDR. People seek swirly bokeh or special degraded looks. But not me. Every time I have tried one of these lenses I am repelled by the bad build quality, poor ergonomics, and naff rendering. Of course you can still make excellent photos with this type of lens but why be hampered by your tools?
This fast 50 is centre sharp at f/4 but its Western counterpart achieves that two stops earlier. The edges are only just OK at f/8.
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Domiplan 2.8/50
I paid 50 clams for this which is too much. It's just hazy rubbish all the time. Of course there might be better copies out there, but other manufacturers have a much higher hit rate.
Pentacon 2.8/135
I forgot I owned this lens because I rarely need this focal length and when I do I've better options. These shows were difficult to focus because they were so indistinct. More time than was reasonable was spent to get only the results you see here.
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/28
This lens has hard vignetting so I did not proceed with the test. From previous evaluations I know I have better 28mm examples under the name Pentax. Time will tell whether those cover the larger sensor.
Conclusion
I trust that this little exercise makes a useful contribution to the available compatibility data.
No comments:
Post a Comment