I’m never one to worry much about lens dust. I’ve written about why you shouldn’t worry about some dust in your lens. But the color bombs they throw out at Color Runs are different. In the last month we’ve had over 20 lenses and several cameras nearly ruined by these things. For what it’s worth, all of the renters tell us they really weren’t near any of the major ‘color bombs.’

Here’s a few pictures from a brand new lens that returned after its first rental — at a Color Run. These pictures are, of course, after the lens was cleaned externally. All of that dust is inside the front and rear elements.

Now a few dust specs rarely cause problems, but this kind of dust affects light transmission and contrast, as well as causing fascinating flare (in pretty colors). The color dust is very fine, tiny specs, made to stick on people as the run by (I’m still trying to figure out why someone thought this was a good idea).  Because of this, the lenses’ weather sealing, front filters, etc. don’t even slow this stuff down. It’s throughout the entire lens stuck on every element, on the gears and helicoids, and in the mirror box of the camera too. And yes, that includes pro-level lenses on pro-level cameras, all of which are supposedly weather sealed. As an added bonus, it doesn’t blow out like regular dust. It must be wiped off.

Here’s a look at the inner rim after the front element was removed.

Here’s the front of group 2, nice and deep inside the lens (excuse the lights, this is a quick post just using worklights).

And here’s one of a dozen Q tips I used to clean out around the focusing gears and helicoids. Remember, this was a brand new lens only used for this one shoot.

The end result for this lens was complete disassembly and cleaning. This was a fairly lucky one – it’s a lens that we can disassemble and clean without requiring factory readjustment. For a lot of lenses that’s not an option.

A number of lenses, including Canon L’s and Nikon Pro lenses had to go to the factory, and at least one has been given the “financially not feasable to repair” sticker. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether they cover it under warranty or not.

You know what I’d probably find more interesting than the photos of what the insides of lenses look like after this? What the inside of the runner’s lungs look like. All my medical training leaves me curious about that kind of thing.

Addendum – here’s a bonus picture. A Sigma 8-16mm with the barrels removed so you can see how pervasive the Fun Run dust was throughout the entire lens. The dust around the mount side of the lens is so thick that it’s blocking the AF motor from working properly and it’s so caked into the lubricant that the helicoids don’t zoom normally. This will have to be completely disassembled and cleaned piece by piece.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

May 2013

BTW – Because I’ve already been asked: this won’t be covered by the rental damage waiver going forward – it’s considered negligent use of equipment just like when salt spray soaks the camera on the beach.

The Levers

My first concern was the plastic levers that are pushed to rotate the base and planes of tilt and shift. By the way – the forward lever isn’t broken – its base is built at an angle to keep it away from the shift rotation knob. Well done, Samyang engineer.

I removed the screws and plates over the levers, of course but I can’t get a decent photo inside. It’s dark in there. The plastic tabs slip over a metal tab that does the actual work inside. It’s effective and tight right now when the lenses are new. I honestly expect this will be a problem area as the lens gets used.

It would be no big deal if you could buy the plastic part; anyone could change it in about 30 seconds. But RokiBowYang parts aren’t available. If anyone from Rokinon reads this, here’s the one thing you could do to increase the popularity of this lens long-term. Sell the plastic parts. You don’t have to open up a parts department: just put all the plastic knobs and levers in a plastic baggie, call it a ‘refurb kit’ and sell it at B&H.

Opening up the Base

We’ll start by removing the 4 screws that hold the shift mechanism to the tilt mechanism. I should mention that the lens is made out of very high grade plastic that is quite thick and solid.  I have no reservations about these parts. It’s similar to the material the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens is made of.

The shift plate comes right off. . . .

. . . from the tilt mechanism and optics. A couple of points in this area. The gears themselves are solid brass as you can see above, but the tracks they run in are plastic.

The same goes for the shift assembly in the lower section.

Most other tilt-shifts have brass tracks and gears. That being said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lenses (including the IS II) have brass gears running on nylon tracks for the zoom ring. But, we do have to replace those every so often because a nylon tooth gets torn off. I will say these are nice, thick plastic teeth, though, so hopefully they’ll hold up well.

Also note the focus key (forked aluminum piece at 3 o’clock in the picture of the optics and shift mechanism, above). We had 3 of 8 lenses that made a scraping sound and sensation when focusing and it’s from the key, which is a piece of stamped aluminum with rather rough edges (see below). Not a big deal, I mention it mostly to let you know not to worry if yours scrapes a bit when focusing. It probably will go away as the rough edges wear off with use.

Back to work. A few more screws and the tilt mechanism comes off.

After which the aperture ring slides off. You can now see the rear optical assembly. It’s a single piece basically, with the elements held in place with glue and retaining rings. It moves as a group when focusing.

Opening Up the Front

Moving around to the front of the lens the makeup ring removes by unscrewing.

Three more screws remove the filter ring.

Showing the 4 screws that hold the retaining ring over the front group.

With these removed the front group comes out as a unit.

Like the rear group, the front group does not have any adjustable elements, simply shims between elements. This group is fixed, not moving along a helicoid track.

A spanner wrench would allow us to open the group and replace the front element, but since there are no adjustable elements inside we didn’t open it up further.

Inside the empty front barrel we can now see the 3 screws that hold the rear group in place. Again, since it’s a sealed group with no adjustments, we didn’t see any need to mess with it.

From the side you can barely see the single helicoid that focuses using the entire rear group.

Conclusions

The original purpose of this disassembly was to try to get an idea about reliability of this lens. I’m left with only the single concern I had when I first examined the lens; I’m afraid the rotation-locking levers might break. That would be absolutely no big deal if the parts were available to repair it. Anyone could do it at home in 30 seconds. Without parts, though, a broken lever means you won’t be able to rotate the planes of tilt and shift.

I have very mild concern about the plastic gear rails for the tilt and shift mechanism, but it seems sturdy plastic and I’m pretty hopeful they’ll hold up well.

Otherwise the lens is really quite well made. Yes, there’s lots of plastic, but it’s very high-quality, heavy plastic with long, thickly-threaded screws holding things together. I have no concerns about the lens from a materials standpoint.

I came away with a lot of admiration for the Samyang engineers who designed this thing, and perhaps some understanding about why the lens is what it is. The design is simple, modular, and logical. That is, I expect, why the lens can be produced with high-grade materials for such an aggressive price. The disassembly took about 15 minutes, tops. Obviously assembly at the factory is going to be quick and staightforward, too.

That being said, the modular design of the two lens groups (front and rear) are a huge cost savings. There are no tilting or centering elements to adjust during the assembly process.

<begin speculation> That may (and I’m completely speculating now) also be why the resolution isn’t quite what the Canon or Nikon lenses have wide open. When designing a lens, the designer has to take into account how much variation to allow. With certain designs a given element might have to be within 0.01mm of a proper spacing distance or 0.01 degrees of tilt off the axis (I’m pulling numbers out of the air for an example) or the lens will be decentered. A more forgiving design might allow 4 or 5 times the margin of error, but in exchange allows more aberration or has a lower resolution.

It seems logical that such a compromise had to be made in the Samyang lens to allow such efficiency of assembly. The designer probably took into account that many people shoot with this type of lens stopped down, where the aberrations are minimized and the resolution very good, and decided that compromise was worthwhile to allow the lens price to be kept so reasonable. </end speculation>

Aaron Closz and Roger Cicala

All images copyright Roger Cicala, 2013 and may not be reproduced without permission.

All hands in images courtesy of Aaron Closz.

Lensrentals.com

May, 2013

The company’s other offerings have all had excellent optics. Construction quality has been rather iffy, and getting one repaired nearly impossible. On the other hand, good optics at prices like they offer makes the build-quality trade off more than acceptable.

I should mention I’m a bit of a Rokinon fan. I own their 14mm because at $379 I think it’s an insane bargain for a very sharp lens. For that price, compared to $2,300 for a Canon 14mm, I’m more than willing to give up autofocus, accept some barrel distortion, and consider it disposable. If it breaks getting a new one won’t be much more expensive than the standard repair cost for a Canon 14mm and less than the repair cost of a Nikon 14-24.

But a tilt-shift is a lot more complex than a simple prime lens, and the RokiBowYang 24mm tilt-shift costs a lot more than their 14mm. So I’ll admit that going in I was a bit skeptical of this lens.

Look and Feel

The first noticeable thing when comparing the Canon 24mm f/3.5 TS-E II, Nikon 24mm PC-E, and Rokinon 24mm TS lenses is the weight.  The Canon weighs in at 780 grams (27.5 ounces), the Samyang at 680, and the Nikon at 730 grams. The Samyang does NOT come with a hood, which the other two have, although they are very shallow hoods that probably aren’t particularly effective.

I think it important to note that the Rokinon has only has 6 aperture blades, compared to 8 for the Canon and 9 for the Nikon. While the Rokinon aperture is round when wide open, stopping down, even a little bit, clearly changes it to a hexagon.

One other thing I noted as soon as I used the lens: the Rokinon has smaller plastic knobs for controlling tilt-shift and locking. The small lever that allows you to rotate the lens on its base and the tilt and shift axis is rather thin plastic (compared to metal on the other lenses) that flexes about 30 degrees when pushed. That makes me a bit nervous; it certainly seems like it could break off without too much pressure.

As far as function, though, the Rokinon gives everything you would ask: 8.5 degrees of tilt, 12 degrees of shift, rotating base and the shift and tilt axis can be rotated so they are aligned or at right angles to each other. The Canon 24mm  TS-E can match all these functions, but the Nikon can’t match the rotations.

Imatest Results

Unfortunately, Imatest results can only be obtained with the lens in straight position, so we can’t compare tilted and shifted. Plenty of lens reviewers will be comparing tilted and shifted images, soon, though.

We tested 4 copies in Canon mount on our Canon 5D Mk II test cameras in the usual fashion. The table below shows the results for the Rokinon versus the Canon 24mm f/3.5 TS-E L. The numbers represent MTF 50 in the center, averaged across the entire lens surface, and the average of the 4 near-corner areas.

	Center	Average	Corner Average
Samyang 24mm f/3.5 TS-E	730	560	455
Canon 24mm TS-E f/3.5	910	775	520
Canon 24-105 f/4 at 24mm	840	690	490

It’s a bit unfair to compare the Rokinon with a $2,000 lens that is widely recognized as one of the sharpest tilt-shifts made, but that’s the most direct comparison. Since most people probably haven’t shot with the Canon 24 TS-E, I included the resolution numbers for the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS just to give a widely known comparison point. Put simply, the Samyang 24 TS-E resolution is adequate – not great but not awful, either.

I thought measurements against the Nikon 24mm PC-E lens might be more even since the Nikon is a much older design that is probably due for a makeover soon. We did our Nikon-mount tests on a D800, so the higher camera resolution would be expected to give significantly higher MTF 50 numbers than the Canon 5D II. (In previous tests we’ve done, the same lens will have an MTF from 15% to 20% higher on a D800 than a 5D II.)

Unfortunately, one of the 4 Nikon-mount Rokinon copies we received was badly decentered, so we only averaged the test results for the other 3 copies, averaged in the table below.

	MTF 50 Center	MTF 50 Average	MTF 50 corner
Samyang 24mm TS	800	640	500
Nikon 24mm PC-E	990	770	490

The Nikon lens clearly resolves a bit better in the center than the Samyang, although in the corner area things are pretty even.

Let’s all remember, though, that these are tilt-shift lenses. Resolution is important, of course, but absolute resolution is not the primary reason we choose a tilt-shift lens, so these tests may be less important than they would be for a standard prime lens. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, our testing tools don’t let us make comparisons with the lenses shifted and tilted — it’s theoretically possible but so many new variables are introduced I wouldn’t trust the results.

The Samyang also falls behind the others on distortion, with 2.3% barrel distortion compared to 1.4% for the Nikon and 0.9% for the Canon.

Stopping Down Aperture

Comparing the lenses stopped down provides some interesting additional information.

The Canon and Nikon tilt-shifts improve only slightly stopped down (for real world purposes the Canon is really identical from f/3.5 to f/8; the Nikon gets a bit sharper in the corners by f/5.6). The Samyang, however, improves quite a bit stopped down.

On the 5D II it never quite catches the Canon lens’s peak resolution, but at f/11 they are identical. (The Canon lens is not getting any sharper from f/8 to f/11, so all we see is diffraction softening. The Samyang is still improving optically, more than enough to offset the diffraction softening.) Compared to the Nikon lens Samyang has almost identical resolution at f/8.

This is a rather important point. A landscape shooter who plans to use tilt function to maximize depth of field and shoot at small apertures should find the Samyang very competitive with the brand name lenses. Someone who plans to shoot at wide apertures will almost certainly notice the difference.

A Very Few Images

Obviously this isn’t a review — I’m a tester not a reviewer. I was able during the few hours it hasn’t been raining this weekend to take a few shots with the lens on a Canon 6D. They may give a little idea about untilted/unshifted image quality and a chance to look at out of focus areas.

Evaluating the out of focus areas, it appears the lens has both longitudinal chromatic and spherical aberration wide open, which is probably why it sharpens up so nicely stopped down. If you want to see 100% jpgs, you can do so HERE.

Conclusions

Obviously this isn’t a full review (that’s not what I do), but hopefully will provide a little information for those considering this lens.

I consider it reasonably priced for the image quality it delivers, but not a screaming bargain by any means. (I consider the RokiBowYang 14mm a screaming bargain.) But, since there is very little competition in the ‘reasonably priced’ tilt-shift lens category, I expect it will sell well.

For those who primarily shoot this kind of lens stopped down, it may be a very good choice. Wide open it’s still acceptable, but the difference between it and the Nikon and Canon versions are going to be noticeable at f/3.5.

I am concerned about the reliability issue, especially given the difficulty in getting RokiBowYang lenses repaired in the U. S. I’ll be tearing one down in the next few days and hopefully looking at the build inside will help alleviate (or confirm) those concerns.

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

Lensrentals.com

May, 2013

Since we got a nice bunch of the A1 version lenses in yesterday, we thought it would be worthwhile to do a bit of comparison with the older version. For those who haven’t had the pleasure used the original Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens, it was something of a love-hate relationship. The original 30mm was small, sharp, and inexpensive; a perfect combination for those shooting a crop sensor camera. Unfortunately, it had the somewhat dubious combination of being rather inaccurate to autofocus, yet extremely difficult to manually focus because of its inaccurate MF ring. There was, perhaps, a bit more copy-to-copy variation than many of us found acceptable.

Sigma’s new version of the 30mm APS-C only lens, would, we hoped, eliminate those negatives. It might even be dramatically better than the original version optically. The original wasn’t a bad lens at all, but the recent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens had most of us anticipating something impressive with the new 30mm, too. But before we get to the optics, lets take a look at the two versions.

Tale of the Tape

	30mm EX DC	30mm DC HSM
Elements / Groups	7 / 7	9 / 8
Aperture blades	8	9
Min. Foc. Dist. (ft)	1.3	0.9
Filter size	62	62
weight (oz.)	15	15
Price	$289	$499

So the new lens gives us a new optical formula, an extra aperture blade, and closer minimum focusing distance to go along with a higher, although still reasonable, price tag. It also comes with the much improved outer coating that doesn’t peel off like the one on the original lens and a HSM (hypersonic) motor that should improve AF speed and perhaps accuracy.

After putting the lens on a camera the build difference is immediately apparent. The lens feels more solidly built, particularly the hood. Most immediately apparent, though, is that the manual focus ring turns smoothly and accurately, which is not at all the case with the gritty, jumpy, inaccurate MF ring on the original version. Did I mention I didn’t like the original MF ring? To paraphrase Shakespeare, “I would beat thee, but that would only infect my hand.” The new one, though, is a pleasure to manually focus; smooth and accurate.

Optical Evaluation

I don’t usually put optical formulas and MTF charts in these posts, but I’m going to make an exception today. Because the lenses look so similar on the outside and have such similar names, I think it important to demonstrate how different they are inside. Here are the optical formulas for the two lenses.

I need to mention that we tested these lenses on a Canon 7D. Results would be slightly different on other cameras so please try not to make comparisons to, say, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 tested on a Canon 5D Mk III. Yes, I know you’re going to anyway, but at least now I can say, “I told you so.”

Anyway, we compared the 8 copies of the 30mm A1 that came in today with 6 copies of the 30mm f/1.4 DC that were on the shelf. As usual, average MTF 50 across the entire lens is plotted on the vertical axis, center MTF 50 on the horizontal, both in Line Pairs / Image Height.

As you can see on the vertical axis, the new version (blue dots) has slightly higher overall (average) resolution, while the older version (red dots) has, perhaps, slightly higher center resolution. (The center difference is pretty minimal and I doubt you could pick it up even pixel-peeping.) The difference away from the center is a bit clearer when presented as a table with corner values included.

	Center MTF 50	Avg MTF 50	Corner MTF 50
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM A1	600	490	340
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC	605	450	260

The lenses, at f/1.4, are about identical in the center, but the new version is significantly better in the corners.

Let’s look at how that changes as we stop down.

The new version starts of sharper in the corners and the corners steadily improve to f/5.6. The old version starts off softer in the corners and improves less as we stop it down. Its corners peak at f/8, but never get nearly as sharp as the new version does.

Conclusion

Like a lot of people, I was hoping for a crop-sensor version of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 full-frame lens; an amazingly high-resolution optic. This lens isn’t that good optically. It’s a very nice lens with good resolution and excellent corner performance. If corner performance is important to you this lens is a significant upgrade. If you are more interested in center resolution, than optically it’s not better than the original.

However, I’d still consider this a worthwhile upgrade for a number of reasons. Build quality is far better. The new lens can be accurately focused manually, something that live-view shooters like myself found was difficult to do with the original. I can’t speak for autofocus accuracy yet, but the Sigma USB dock,which now has a release date of early May, will allow us a degree of microfocus adjustment not available with other lenses. The dock is fully compatible with the A1 lens. To me, that’s worth the price of the upgrade right there.

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

Lensrentals.com

April, 2013

Unlike the CP.2 lens, the ZE and ZF mount Zeiss 135mm lenses have normal photography housings. The manual focus throw is not nearly as long as with the cinema lens, but it is very smooth and the lens focuses beautifully. With its solid metal housing, the Zeiss weighs in just over 2 pounds compared to 1.65 pounds for the Canon. The Zeiss has a 77mm front element compared to 72mm for the Canon, and 9 aperture blades compared to the Canon’s 8. There’s a bit of price difference, too, with the Zeiss listing for $2,122 and the Canon $989 at the moment.

Imatest Results

We had 8 copies of the ZE 135mm f/2 to test today — not enough to give absolute limits of variation but enough to at least give us a good suggestion. I’ve shown the Imatest MTF 50 results (in Line Pairs / Image Height on a Canon 5D Mk II) at f/2.0 below. As you can see this is a nice, tight grouping of results.

Compared to the average (mean) MTF50 values for the Canon 135mm f/2L, the Zeiss is better wide open across the frame, as shown in the table below. That’s very impressive as the Canon is one of the sharpest lenses around.

	Center MTF 50	Avg MTF 50	Corner MTF 50
Zeiss 135mm f/2	945	840	745
Canon 135mm f/2	800	710	640

As we stop the aperture down, though, the Canon catches up quite quickly. As shown in the graph below, the Zeiss slowly sharpens up steradily through f/5.6 on the Canon 5D II, with the corners reaching their maximum at f/8.

The Canon lens peaks at around the same aperture, but resolution increases to a greater degree as we stop down. By f/5.6 the lenses are virtually equal in resolution.

Summary

The Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar is a superb lens. It has one of the highest resolutions we’ve tested overall and the corners are amazingly good, even wide open. You definitely pay for what you get, though. The Canon 135mm f/2 is a superb lens and while it doesn’t have quite the resolution as the Zeiss wide open, it is less than half the price and autofocuses. (The 135mm f/2 is always on my list of the best value lenses available.)

Possibly in reaction to the Zeiss 135mm hitting the streets, a very widespread rumor has appeared that Sigma will announce a 135mm f/1.8 OS Art Series lens later this year. That’s exciting, but the key word here are ‘rumored’ and ‘announce’. While Sigma is generally fairly quick from announcement to release, that still sounds like a lens that won’t be available until the end of 2013 or early 2014. Assuming the rumors are true.

For video shooters, particularly, this lens is going to be a superb tool. Photographers wanting the very best will be interested, too. The optics are as good as it gets.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

April, 2013

It looks nice and hefty sitting next to a Canon 135mm f/2.

It looks much better mounted to a Canon 5D Mk III in my hands, don’t you think?

Imatest Results

We tested on the Canon 5D Mk II so we could directly compare it to one of my favorite lenses, the Canon 135mm f/2.0. The Canon is one of the sharpest lenses at f/2.0 we’ve tested. Below are the Imatest MTF50 results at the center, averaged at 13 points over the front surface of the lens, and the average of the 4 corners.

Long live the new King! The new Zeiss 135mm T2.1 CP.2 (and the hopefully soon to be available ZE and ZF f/2.0) have some pretty amazing numbers. Particularly in the corners. We’ve never had anything do better at this aperture.

I don’t have any nice pictures for you, but there are several people who have gotten copies already and have posted some impressive images. Here are a few links but there are lots more:

http://zeissimages.com/showreplies.php?qid=950

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51185931

http://zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=557&showall

Pretty impressive stuff. It’s priced at $2,200. That’s going to make for a tough decision for Canon shooters with the excellent Canon 135mm f/2.0 lens available at less than half that price. I don’t think anyone will ever complain about the Zeiss image quality, though. It’s spectacular.

Roger Cicala
Lensrentals.com
April, 2013

Comparing the Specs

The Zeiss is a bit pricier than the others lenses in this range, and a bit larger. But you get twice as many aperture blades for your money. Not to mention it has significantly more light transmission. Don’t you wish photo lens makers had to use actual transmission (T) instead of theoretical calculations (f)? Looking at the table you kind of see why the camera makers might rather not.

	Zeiss CP.2	Canon IS II	Nikon VR II	Tamron VC	Sigma OS
Price	$19,900.00	$2,200.00	$2,400.00	$1,499.00	$1,249.00
Weight (lb)	6.2	3.3	3.4	3.2	3.15
Length (in)	9.85	7.8	8.1	7.4	7.8
Aperture blades	18	8	9	9	9
Min. Foc Dist. (ft.)	5	3.9	4.6	4.2	4.6
T#	2.9	3.4	3.3	3.2	3.2

Ok, enough of the silliness. The Zeiss lens is clearly an entirely different beast and while we can mount it to our SLRs that’s not what it’s designed for. That extra money and weight go into making it a true cinema lens with long, smooth focus and zoom gearing. It’s also really parfocal, meaning if you focus on something at 70mm and zoom out to 200mm the object is still in focus. None of the photo lenses are (although budget minded cinematographers desperately want them to be).

Just a Little Bit of Handling

I could go on for some time about how accurately it focuses (it does), how smoothly it zooms (totally true) or how it’s not too heavy to hand hold for a while (a complete lie – it weighs almost as much as a Canon 500 f/4 IS II). This is a lens designed from the ground up to be mounted to a set of rails and focused with a geared follow focus system. It’s perfect for that and built as solidly as any cinema lens we carry.

Cinema lenses, as a rule, are designed differently than photo lenses. Photo lenses are about rapid autofocus, which means rear or inner focusing. That in turn means focus breathing, often to the point of massive changes in focal length when you focus closely. Being parfocal is of little importance for a rapidly autofocusing photo lens. When you zoom from 80 to 150mm if the camera can autofocus in a split second, who cares if it’s still in focus after the move? Not to mention the subject might be moving anyway. Being parfocal is very important for a cinema zoom.

We did a quick parfocal check, comparing it with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which is not parfocal (but actually sort of close to it). We simply set the lenses at 70mm and live view focused on the bush in the center with each lens.

Then zoomed to 200mm and took another image.

Here are 100% crops of the bush at 200mm with the Zeiss on the left, Canon on the right.

We did a quick check for focus breathing, too. I won’t repeat the Canon lens, it breathes significantly and the focal length changes as you zoom close. The Zeiss 70-200 did not focus breath significantly from far to near focusing.

Yes, I Had to Run the Numbers

Absolute resolution, historically, has been far more important for a photo lens sitting in front of a high-resolution sensor than a video lens. Even 4K video is about 8 megapixels, not nearly as resolution sensitive as a 36 megapixel SLR. So when we’ve tested video lenses for resolution compared to photo lenses they’ve historically not held up well. Resolution isn’t their primary focus.

But we thought we’d see if the Zeiss could hold its own against the best 70-200 f2.8 photo zoom we have, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Because the Canon is actually shooting at T3.4, we tested the Zeiss wide open (T2.9) and also stopped down slightly to T4. I’m not going to clutter up the tables with the T4 numbers – this lens is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down, with the exception that the corners get just a tiny bit better at T4.

These are Imatest MTF50 results using a Canon 5D II test camera showing point sharpness at the center, average over the entire lens, and average of the 4 corners.

	Center MTF50	Avg. MTF50	Avg. Corner MTF50
Zeiss@ 70mm	990	775	600
Zeiss@ 135mm	915	675	575
Zeiss@ 200mm	815	575	425
Canon@ 70mm	875	755	575
Canon @ 200mm	840	720	525

Well, as you can see from the table, the Zeiss 70-200 T2.9 takes the idea of video lenses being lower resolution and shows that at the right price point, you really do get it all. At 70mm it’s clearly outresolving the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The MTF50 decreases steadily at longer zoom lengths, but even at 200mm it’s still as sharp in the center as the Canon, which is the highest resolving 70-200 zoom we’ve tested. And remember the Canon is working at T3.4 wide open, a half stop slower than the Zeiss.

Let’s keep some perspective – if I were a photographer I wouldn’t be spending this kind of money for a 6-pound 70-200mm zoom because it’s sharper at the wide end. And even shooting 6k video I suspect you’d be hard pressed to detect a huge difference in your footage at 70mm. But now you can have a true cinema lens with long focus and zoom throws, properly geared for follow (and zoom) focus, parfocal and without significant breathing that’s as sharp as any photo lens made.

While $20,000 is sticker shock for my photography colleagues, consider a set of three Cooke Panchro primes covering the same focal length at the same aperture costs $22,000 and doesn’t even approach the Zeiss in resolution. Plus Zeiss lenses don’t tend to spit out focus helicoid collars and require a $600 repair every 3 months like Panchros do.

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

Lensrentals.com

April, 2012

BTW – I know what you’re thinking. Yes, I do love my job.

But like a lot of people I viewed Leica’s move to a CMOS sensor, rather than the CCD used in the Leica M9 and Leica M-E cameras, with a bit of trepidation. That 18-megapixel CCD had more resolution than one would expect from an 18-megapixel camera. Despite the sensors many limitations, I was concerned that a ‘modern’ 24-megapixel CMOS sensor might actually be a step backward on the resolution front.

So, while I’m not a reviewer, I am a tester and have access to a nice Imatest lab. It seemed a good idea to compare the MTF50 of the new M Type 240 against the older M9 with the same lenses.

I’m pretty sure I’ll be the only person to do this for one simple reason. The new base on the Leica M makes setting the camera up for Imatest incredibly difficult. It wasn’t easy on the previous Leicas, but setting up the M-240 took around 2 hours at just one focal length.

So what you have here is a comparison of MTF50 using the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH lens. Since the same lens was used for all three tests and for each, multiple focus bracketed images checked and the sharpest kept, it should give us a nice comparison of differences in the sensors.

For those of you wanting numbers on other lenses, I hope someone checks for you. It won’t be me — the M type 240 is just too difficult to set up. But this should, at least, give us a comparison of system resolution with the same lens between the new M-240 and M9.

Imatest Results

I’ll just give the results as tables with MTF (measured in line pairs / image height) in the center, averaged over 13 points, and averaged in the 4 corners. (Both horizontal and vertical resolution are measured at each point.)  We’ll measure at f/1.4, f/2.8 and f/5.6 for each camera.

Camera	Aperture	Center	Average	Corners
Leica M9	f/1.4	700	610	500
Leica M (Type 240)	f/1.4	740	630	590
Leica M9	f/2.8	1030	850	640
Leica M (Type 240)	f/2.8	1070	860	770
Leica M9	f/5.6	1110	970	790
Leica M (Type 240)	f/5.6	1140	990	860

Conclusion

Well, obviously my initial concerns were incorrect. The new M-240 resolves at least as well (measured by MTF 50) as the M9 did. It probably is just a bit better. I don’t want to split hairs – the differences in the center and overall are pretty small and probably of no, or very little, significance.

The difference in the corners, though, does appear to be approaching significance. (One thing to note, in determining the overall weighted average, the corners count only 25% as much as the center, and half as much as the mid points, so the corner difference gets masked a bit in the ‘average’ number.)

Why would there be a corner improvement larger than the improvement in the center or midpoints? My first guess would be that Leica, those masters of on-sensor microlenses, have improved the microlenses on the new sensor. But that could be entirely wrong.

It might also be that the corners are better with a 50mm lens and won’t be as different at other focal lengths. Or perhaps this camera was just perfectly in tune with this lens. (We only have one right now, so I can’t do a comparison.) Hopefully, someone else will decide that’s worth further investigation.

But for any of you who were, like me, a bit hesitant about the new sensor, it’s really good. Judging by what real reviewers like Steve Huff, Ming Thein, and Sean Reid are saying and showing, this is rather redundant anyway. The images are awesome.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

April, 2013

For the last year or so, it seems like almost every new lens release has been accompanied by sticker shock. The manufacturers are businessmen and they know when we’ve been salivating at the promise of a new wonder lens. They know we”ll be willing to (at least some of us) pay a ridiculous amount to put that slightly better lens in front of our camera.

Somewhat lost in the hundreds of Internet threads about whether this-or-that awesome lens is worth its ridiculous price, though, there are some good bargains to be had. In fact, right now there may be more excellent lens bargains available than at any time I can recall. But let’s define real bargains for a minute.

A bargain is NOT finding a $2,500 lens for $1,500. That is a scam and doesn’t happen in the real world. A bargain is finding a lens that does nearly as well as the best possible lens, or does some things every bit as well as the best possible lens, at a fraction of the cost.

In some cases, you can get a good bargain even if you limit yourself to the three-zooms-to-cover-every-boring-possible-focal-length kit. For others, getting a great bargain means leaving your comfort zone a bit; perhaps changing lenses more frequently, or correcting some distortion in post-processing. Doing this, though, especially if you are taking the first timid steps away from the ”three zooms” approach, may be the best thing that can happen to your photography.

Bargains for Nikon

Nikon is prime bargain-shopper territory this year, folks. It seems there’s a perfect storm for Nikon shooters. Nikon has released a number or really good, reasonably priced lenses. Third-party developers have added some, too. As if this wasn’t enough, Nikon is exhibiting many of the signs of a business with inventory control or projection problems — discounting things right and left. While the first two factors probably won’t change in the near future, this third one probably will, so some of the Nikon bargains may be temporary.

That being said, the recent price drops have kept a few things from being listed in my bargains. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, for example, would have made the list when it was $1,300 and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 was $1,900. But with the Nikon currently available at $1,660 it doesn’t make my “costs 60% of the best lens” bargain definition. I’ll also mention there aren’t any DX bargains listed largely because, while DX zooms  are (usually) less expensive than FX alternatives, there are often several to choose from at roughly the same price.

Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Price: $1,099

As good as the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II? Nope. Vibration control? Nope. Require cameras with built-in focus motor? Yep. But if you are using this focal length to shoot action, which a lot of people are, then the vibration control is less important because you require shorter shutter speeds. The image quality is better than third party zooms in this focal length (in the center it’s just about as good as the 70-200 VR II). If you don’t need VR, then here’s the classic bargain: 90% of the lens at less than 50% of the price.

Here’s another way to look at it: A Nikon 70-200mm VR II and Nikon D600 combo will set you back $4,394. The Nikon D800 and Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 – only $3,896. Which one do you think gives the best images?

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8

Price: $749  

As good as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8? Nope. Corners soft at f/2.8? Yep. Flare like nobody’s business with the sun in the field? Sure does. Not to mention it’s matched up against the best wide-angle zoom ever made in the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. But it has excellent resolution for an f/2.8 full-frame wide angle and even the corners are sharp at f/4. And you can buy something nice with the $1,200 you’d save compared to the 14-24mm f/2.8

Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Price: $899

Here’s a superb bargain example. It’s sharper than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G, Zeiss ZF 35mm f/1.4 or Zeiss 35mm f/2, and significantly less expensive. There seem to be some autofocus issues on the D800, though, so D800 owners may need to be happy using center point AF only. Then again, it certainly autofocuses better than the Zeiss lenses.

Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 AF-S G

Price: $459

I’m not a fan of the 60mm focal length for macro work. But here’s an exceptionally sharp lens, very small and easy to add to your bag that is really inexpensive given the recent price reductions.

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

Price: $420

It’s manual focus, but at 14mm focus is basically ‘everything I can’t touch is usually in focus’ so that’s not critical. (Manual focus is the reason I didn’t include longer Rokinon lenses as bargains.) It has a lot of barrel distortion, but everything else at this focal length has some. Not as much, but some. But it’s amazingly sharp. Better than the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime (which is way dated) and 1/3rd of the price. I will note, this is held together inside with plastic, glue, and small screws. You won’t be using it for years. But the price of a new one is less than the price of a repair on a 14-24 f/2.8.

Nikon f/1.8 G Primes

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $370 

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $217

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $220

The Trinity of Nikon f/1.8 G primes. All are as sharp as their far more expensive f/1.4 big brothers. All three together cost about $800, half of what a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G costs. Want to shoot world-class Nikon for under $3,000? Get a D7100 and these 3 primes and you’re set. That’s actually a bit less than, say, a Fuji X-Pro1 and 3 prime lenses.

While it didn’t quite make my ultimate bargain list, the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G at $600 is excellent, too. If you shoot full-frame you can still get 3 superb f/1.8 primes for $1,100. That’s less than the cost of the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom and each has clearly better IQ than the zoom.

Bargains for Canon

Canon seems to have better inventory control lately, making their markdowns a bit less dramatic. Or perhaps Canon shooters have been using their disposable income on lenses instead of cameras, keeping the demand high. There are still some good bargains to be had in the Canon world, though.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L

 Price: $674

You can focus on the lack of image stabilization and the f/4 aperture rather than f/2.8. But it’s sharper than the f/4 IS version and about half the price. This is one of the ‘starter’ L quality lenses I recommend to everyone. You give up some compromises for this bargain, but in decent light it can create images as good as anything in this focal range.

Tie: Tokina AT-X 16-28 f/2.8 & Canon 17-40 f/4

Price: $749 & $699, respectively

Either is right around half the price of a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L lens. The 17-40 gives up a stop for that money, but is probably a bit sharper than the 16-35 and certainly is more flare resistant. It’s also drop-dead reliable; we rarely see one break. The Tokina is just as sharp and gives you f/2.8, but you won’t be putting any filters in front of it, and it flares if the sun is anywhere in the image. Certainly, though, either provides 80% of the capability for half the money, which is my definition of a good buy.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Price: $899

Not quite as great a bargain for Canon shooters as for Nikon shooters since the Canon 35mm f/1.4 is a bit cheaper than the Nikon. But the Sigma is still a sharper lens for about 70% of the price.

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

Price: $379

This one (or these three if you want to go by different brand badges) is an even better bargain for Canon shooters than for Nikon – it’s cheaper in Canon mount and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 is nearly $2,000 – higher than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom. If you can live with the distortion it’s definitely the cheapest way to go really wide.

Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

Price: $149

It’s so small and inexpensive I use it as my lens cap. It gives excellent image quality, particularly in the center. If you prefer wider aperture you might consider the slightly less expensive 50mm f/1.8, but the 40mm is quicker to focus, doesn’t have that annoying buzzing motor, and is half the size.

Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro

Price: $499

It’s not quite as good as the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS as far as image quality, but it’s close. Personally, this is one where I’d pay the difference because I really need the IS, but many people do not. For them, this original version is barely more than half the price and an excellent lens. I doubt it will remain available for a lot longer, though.

Canon 85mm f/1.8

Price: $359

Another excellent prime lens that can be had for a tiny fraction of what the Canon 85 f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses cost. If you can give up the half stop of light and a bit of bokeh creaminess, you can save a lot of money and space in your bag with this one.

Canon 200mm f/2.8L Mk II

Price: $759

It’s sharper and a lot smaller than a 70-200 f/2.8 lens at half the price. I mention this one because there are a lot of sports shooters who could tape their 70-200mm lens at 200mm – every shot is taken there. This lens makes a lot of sense for them.

Bargains for Micro 4/3

There’s a bit less room for bargain hunting in m4/3, which isn’t surprising given fewer lenses and manufacturers. There’s a big group of top-level primes and zooms for around $1,000, another group at $600-$800, and then a lot of zooms at around $500. There are a couple of lenses that meet my ’60% of the price’ bargain criteria, though.

Sigma 30mm EX DN f/2.8

Price: $149

Superb image quality and a rock-bottom price make this a must buy. It’s not a true wide-aperture prime, being f/2.8, but it’s sharp wide open.

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN

Price: $199

As above, and while it’s not quite as inexpensive, it’s still a bargain.

There are some other lenses, like the Panasonic pancakes and Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that have good prices, although I’m not sure they’re screaming bargains.

Bargains for NEX

Looking for high-quality, low-price NEX lenses is a fairly quick task, but right now there’s one bargain that may top anything else for any other system.

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 & 19mm f/2.8

Price: $199, total

Basically, unless you already have both of these, buy the package. Even if you have one, buy the package and sell the other one.

That’s Probably Not All

If you think I missed a bargain or two, feel free to add a comment. But remember the criteria aren’t just cheap lenses; it’s excellent lenses at a fraction of the price of similar quality lenses.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

March, 2013

My first impulse was to do Standard Internet Response #1 — give an absolute answer, such as ‘obviously not’, despite having no facts to back that answer up. Then I considered Standard Internet Response #3 — give a useless, but factual, answer like, ‘well, if you have a 70-200 and teleconverter already, that’s certainly adequate’. (I never use Standard Internet Response #2 – the ‘if you’re a good enough photographer it doesn’t matter which you use’ response, nor S.I.R. #4 — ‘Google is your friend’.)

But, since it really is a reasonable question and a lot of people seemed interested, we set up to Imatest the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II / 2X III combination. Please be aware that our longest testing distance is 40 feet, which isn’t ideal for testing 400mm lenses, but it’s the longest we have. (I’m pretty comfortable it’s a longer testing distance than anyone else has, too, except maybe DxO and they aren’t really sharing information about their testing set up). Results may be quite different at 300 feet. I’m not sure which way they’d be different. The 70-200 seems sharper at this distance than it does at infinity, at least that’s what most people say. On the other hand, teleconverters are generally tuned for long distance shooting. So I just don’t know. (BTW – “I don’t know” is not a listed S. I. R.)

Imatest Results

We used an identical setup to the tests we ran last week on the 80-400 AF-S and 80-400 AF lenses to test the 70-200 f/2.8 with 2X combination. The MTF50 results are shown in the table below. The bottom line, from a resolution standpoint, the new 80-400 is clearly better. The previous 80-400 is better than the 70-200 with 2X right in the center, but outside the center the 70-200 with TC is very close.

	Center MTF50	Avg MTF50	Avg. Corner MTF50
Nikon 80-400 AF-S	820	675	480
Nikon 80-400 AF	725	575	410
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with 2X	600	560	440

What does it mean? Mostly it means if you’re shooting at 40 feet distance the 70-200 VR II and 2x teleconverter will get you a nice usable image, but not as good as you would get with the 80-400 VR II.

The old 80-400 AF lens is better in the center than the 70-200 VR II combination, although that’s just right at the center. Less than 1/3 of the distance away from the center, the two are even.

I can’t say the results would be the same if the shooting distance was near infinity, and I’m not sure how they’d change. The 70-200 alone is reputed to be a bit less sharp at infinity, though. On the other hand, the teleconverter might well have less of an effect at the longer shooting distance.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

March, 2013