Wow, very interesting and heroic job adjusting to same avg brightness.
I would not have anticipated this result. People pay good money for
lenses that differ by less
than demonstrated here.
Suspect it takes a bunch of images at different distances to get a good
feel of the varying "renditions". The exercise also highlights how
difficult it is to devise lens tests and interpret them.
Flat targets at one distance only reveal so much and any field
curvature will severely handicap the lens---witness some Zeiss lenses.
They don't "teach to the test" fortunately .
There is a 50/3.5 Heliar (seen reviews at photozone on Nex) that would
be interesting to throw in the test would it be possible.
It is known to be superb at 3-10meter range with excellent resolution
but low to medium macro and microcontrast characteristic of the design.
Of course it just has one more element than the Tessar and both are
derivatives of the Cooke triplet.
Mike
50mm Moose writes:
I've revised the original roll-over to use the average brightness
matched
versions.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/50mm_lenses/50mmcomp.htm>
I looked more closely at focus, and it's apparent that I mis-focused
the Tessar
slightly further back than the other
two. So I've done a half decent PP job of moving the focal plane
forward to
match the others. Again, this is to allow
comparison of others aspects without an extraneous factor interfering.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|