Poll: Old vs New
Total Members Polled: 16
Discussion
Took idential pictures last night with two lenses on my A300.
Both at 50mm, F/11, 30 sec exposure, ISO 100.
One with the stock 18-70 Alpha lens, and one with a slightly out-dated Industar 50/2
I can barely see any difference! I thought there would have been massive improvement after this length of time:
Both at 50mm, F/11, 30 sec exposure, ISO 100.
One with the stock 18-70 Alpha lens, and one with a slightly out-dated Industar 50/2
I can barely see any difference! I thought there would have been massive improvement after this length of time:
Always good to try these little tests.
There's still a fair difference to my eye. The top one is softer and the street lights flare far more for a start.
I think you would find more differences if you shot the two wide open at a scene that would reveal how the lens handles objects at varying distances.
That said I don't think there's anything wrong with using older lenses. They may not perform quite so well as modern glass but they often have a really nice way of rendering (particularly for things like portraits).
There's still a fair difference to my eye. The top one is softer and the street lights flare far more for a start.
I think you would find more differences if you shot the two wide open at a scene that would reveal how the lens handles objects at varying distances.
That said I don't think there's anything wrong with using older lenses. They may not perform quite so well as modern glass but they often have a really nice way of rendering (particularly for things like portraits).
Edited by bobfrance on Thursday 18th June 14:46
OK - a couple of 100% crops at f/5.6 of my home-grown tomatoes 
. Both manually focussed (with much difficulty on Alpha lens 
)
There seems to be more of a difference here.
Second one looks better to me - and yes, it's the Alpha (meaning most people guessed wrong on the first images!)
Not only that, but with all settings identical, the Alpha lens produced pictures that were much brighter at f/5.6. I forgot to check but I would say at least two or three stops. So the pictures above had different shutter speeds.
Oh well, that blows my theory away.
Old lens is good, but not as good
. Both manually focussed (with much difficulty on Alpha lens )There seems to be more of a difference here.
Second one looks better to me - and yes, it's the Alpha (meaning most people guessed wrong on the first images!)
Not only that, but with all settings identical, the Alpha lens produced pictures that were much brighter at f/5.6. I forgot to check but I would say at least two or three stops. So the pictures above had different shutter speeds.
Oh well, that blows my theory away.
Old lens is good, but not as good
Edited by rasputin on Thursday 18th June 23:26
rasputin said:
...meaning most people guessed wrong on the first images!
Jeez - I didn't believe that until I checked the poll results!I think this test has shown more about the quality of peoples observation than the individual lenses.
ETA: Only 6 people have voted so I suppose it's not too damning.
Edited by bobfrance on Friday 19th June 09:23
I didnt vote, but guessed the top landscape was the industar on the basis that it looked like it might have more aperture flap thingies and I know that the old russian lenses often do have lots. I've got a hellios 44 that I like.
What condition is the industar in? Does it have haze or yellowing? How much dust? I dont know the Industar but at what aperture is it sharpest?
I have a number of manual lenses that I think are very good. Currently playing with a Yashica 50mm/2 which I really like.
What condition is the industar in? Does it have haze or yellowing? How much dust? I dont know the Industar but at what aperture is it sharpest?
I have a number of manual lenses that I think are very good. Currently playing with a Yashica 50mm/2 which I really like.
Edited by mas99 on Friday 19th June 09:50
In this case I don't think it was the number of aperture blades that gave it away (they tend to have more impact in the out of focus areas), but the fact that the newer lens has flare resistant coating (look at the street lamps) and generally uses better quality glass (hence the increased sharpness).
Inn all fairness, these tests are also best done shooting RAW, as another factor that will affect the image is the in-camera processing that usually goes on when shooting JPG such as sharpening, noise reduction etc.
Inn all fairness, these tests are also best done shooting RAW, as another factor that will affect the image is the in-camera processing that usually goes on when shooting JPG such as sharpening, noise reduction etc.
bobfrance said:
Simpo Two said:
rasputin said:
...meaning most people guessed wrong on the first images!
I interpreted the second one to be Industar so voted for it. There was no clear explanation which was which.So just run this by me again - which lens took which photo?
Sorry, don't think I made myself very clear.
The question was, guess which image was taken with which lens.
Answer: Top is Industar, bottom is Sony.
I think the Industar is very impressive for the age it is. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to make lenses these days but the difference in IQ is still quite subtle (IMO).
The question was, guess which image was taken with which lens.
Answer: Top is Industar, bottom is Sony.
I think the Industar is very impressive for the age it is. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to make lenses these days but the difference in IQ is still quite subtle (IMO).
It's hard to judge the sharpness in the second pair of shots as they are pretty close together and the use of jpg won't make matters easier. What I will say is that I much prefer the bokeh (out of focus areas) in the second image as it appears much softer and smoother to me.
Edited by Ravell on Saturday 20th June 02:26
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff