archive-com.com » COM » S » SLRLENSREVIEW.COM

Total: 414

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Categories - SLR Lens Review
    Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Telephoto Zoom Sony Minolta Wide Angle Standard Telephoto Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Tamron Wide Angle Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Telephoto Tokina Wide Angle Standard Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Voigtlander Wide Angle Standard Telephoto Macro Misc Mamiya Wide Angle 645 Standard 645 Telephoto 645 Russian Meyer Pentacon Contact Us Member Login Home

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/categories (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Tags - SLR Lens Review
    Macro Wide Angle Zoom Pentax Wide Angle 645 Macro Standard Zoom Wide Angle Zoom Telephoto Standard Wide Angle Telephoto 645 Standard 645 Telephoto Zoom Sigma Wide Angle Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Telephoto Zoom Sony Minolta Wide Angle Standard Telephoto Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Tamron Wide Angle Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Telephoto Tokina Wide Angle Standard Macro Wide Angle Zoom Standard Zoom Telephoto Zoom Voigtlander Wide Angle Standard Telephoto Macro Misc Mamiya Wide Angle 645 Standard 645 Telephoto 645 Russian Meyer Pentacon Contact Us Member Login Home Tags Subscribe to blog Subscribe via RSS Home Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site Categories Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog Tags Tags Displays a list of tags that has been used in the blog Search Tags Title Tag Weight Asc Desc 50mm lenses 3 Subscribe via RSS canon 5 Subscribe via RSS fed 1 Subscribe via RSS industar 1 Subscribe via RSS jupiter 3 Subscribe via RSS leica 5 Subscribe via RSS ltm lenses 3 Subscribe via RSS macro 2 Subscribe via RSS nex 5n 1 Subscribe via RSS nex 7

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/tags (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Guide To Russian LTM Lenses (Part 3) - SLR Lens Review
    cart wheeled from the Jena factory It s not really clear if this earlier veersion of the lens is optically better but because of the limited production the few samples that appear here and there fetch thousands of dollars from collectors Expect to pay 50 75 for the silver version and slighty more for the black one The build quality is identical to Jupiter 3 lens aluminum barrel and focusing aperture rings Aperture ring is stepless although samples from the very last years of production have introduced 1 f stop clicks to it Aperture range is f 2 through f 22 90 degrees of focusing ring rotation from the MFD of 1m to the infiity Jupiter 8 is a more rounded lens than its faster 50 1 5 version The lens shows slightly better overall sharpness but most notably at f 2 but given the age of these lenses the differences I m seeing might easily be caused by the condition of each lens Seems to be on par or slightly better than Canon 50 1 8 and 50 1 9 LTM lenses but gives ground a bit to Canon 50 1 4 LTM Moderate global contrast and fairly decent tonal reproduction make this lens a very nice option for portraiture type work where you care more about skin tones than absolute resolution per se Prone to flare so using a hood is advisable when shooting in bright conditions The lens over exposes by 0 5EV on M8 as well as on NEX 5n Vignetting is minimal on both APS C and APS H cameras but most likely going to be higher on a full frame body Jupiter 9 At a Glance Another very popular Jupiter lens This lens was manufactured in almost every possible for its time mount the original lens was first released in LTM Zorki and Contax Kiev mounts in late 40s and later released in M42 in M24 and Kiev 10 mounts Interestingly the very firsst M42 versions of this lens were actually M39 lenses with an M39 M42 adapters The LTM version of the lens had a couple of cosmetic variation over the years and changed its labeling the very early versions were labelled ZK and were manufactured from the original batch of Zeiss optical glass Later versions were labeled as Jupiter 9 in Russian and starting from late 70s in English as USSR started exporting these lenses The very last batch of lenses was manufactured in black Expect to pay 150 190 for the earlier versions of the lens and add 50 for the later black ones The very first versions of the lens are a collector s item and last auction for a better than average condition of this lens fetched over 800 The build quality of the lens is similar to all other Jupiters aluminium barrel and focusing aperture rings The aperture ring is clickless on the earlier versions of the lens The min focusing distance varied between rangefinder and SLR versions

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/entry/a-guide-to-russian-ltm-lenses-part-3 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • SLR Lens Review - SLR Lens Review
    produced significant glare etc etc etc All this obviously also deters the would be users from trying out the Canon LTM despite the niche designation or perhaps because of it Canon 50 1 2 has managed to retain its value over the years with most decent quality copies selling for upwards of 600 these days Add to that a LTM to M adapter and an M to NEX adapter if you plan to use it on Sony NEX camera and you re looking at an extra 100 150 in expenses Compare that to the modern Sony 50 1 8 OSS with the price of 275 no woder that an average user would never even look twice at the Canon lens I picked up a copy of Canon 50 1 2 purely on a whim not that I was thinking I d be using it more frequently this time around but more because I wanted to compare it to a couple of other 50mm lenses As I mentioned earlier the prices for this lens are quite stable these days so I did not expect to loose much money when I finally decided to sell it The comparison with Sony E 50 1 8 OSS is also kind of random I ve been using these two lenses side by side for a few weeks and just decided to write my observations Ultimately though I d want to compare the 50 1 2 to other rangefinder lenses both modern and classic if you have not done so already take a look at the Alternative 50mm for NEX article to get an idea of what to expect down the road Tagged in 50mm lenses canon leica ltm lenses sony Comments Continue reading Hits 22423 0 Sigma 19mm f 2 8 EX DN Lens Review on Sony NEX 5n and NEX 7 Posted by Administrator on Sunday 15 July 2012 in Lens Reviews Just published new review of Sigma 19 2 8 EX DN on Sony NEX 5n and Sony NEX 7 Read Review Tagged in nex 5n nex 7 sigma sony Comments Hits 14584 0 Quick Test Sony E 50 1 8 vs Carl Zeiss Planar 50 2 ZM on Sony NEX 7 Posted by Administrator on Sunday 15 April 2012 in Lens Comparisons Today we re going to take a look at Sony s E 50 1 8 lens one of the newest additions to the Sony NEX lens lineup and do a quick comparison to one of the best 50mm rangefinder lenses Carl Zeiss Planar T 50 2 ZM The lenses are vastly different in optical construction build quality features but ultimately both are 50mm primes and can be used on NEX cameras With the 50mm f 1 8 OSS still being quite hard to come by because of various manufacturing delays that plagued Sony for a few months after the major flood in Thailand as well as because of the unexpected demand for this lens users have been resorting to exploring

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/blogger/listings/slrlensreview (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Guide To Russian LTM Lenses (Part 2) - SLR Lens Review
    the sellers have obviously read some good reviews of this lens from folks who have managed to calibrate the lens properly and assumed that this warrants a price increase Well let s say you decide to buy a Jupiter 3 lens for the current going rate of 200 Add to that shipping of 20 Then add some probability of the lens actually being defective a lot of East Block eBay sellers do exaggerate quite a bit when describing their items which naturally leads to some bad cases and unsatisfied customers Then add the cost of cleaning and calibrating the lens I don t know exactly how much shimming adjusting the lens costs but let s say 100 for full CLA adjustment We re at 320 350 for a Jupiter 3 Huh at this price point I personally would not even bother with such a lens and would go for Canon 50 1 4 which is essentially the same Zeiss copy but done the right way The last piece of advice to someone new to Russian LTM lenses Do not confuse the rangefinder M39 lenses with SLR M39 lenses Soviets in their infinite wisdom have decided to use the same M39 mount for different camera designs but the lenses from one system are not compatible with the other system The prime example is Jupiter 9 which is available in pretty much every mount possible including both M39 variations This unfortunately leads to some confusion with some sellers marking some SLR M39 lenses as rangefinder lenses Ok and with that let s discuss some lenses In the remainder of this section I will cover Industar lenses much more affordable but not necessarily the best performing lineup of Russian LTM lenses while in the third part of this guide I will cover Jupiter series of lenses Industar 22 Fed 5cm Fed 50mm At a Glance FED 50 3 5 Sony NEX 5n ISO 800 1 60 f 3 5 Industar 22 FED 50 and FED 5cm are effectively one and the same lens originally cloned from Leica s pre war Elmar 50 3 5 a Tessar design and manufactured at different factories Industar was manufactured at KMZ near Moscow while FED was manufactured at FED in Kharkiv The lens had a gazzilion little variations in shape size and body as far as I know there was even one version with rigid barrel The lens can be most commonly found as a collapsible variant with focusing tab and focusing limiter Like with the original Elmar aperture is stepless and is controlled by a tiny knob around the front lens element Very non ergonomic design as there is no blind operation mode meaning you would always need to look at the lens to find the knob and then move it to a new position The build quality of the lens is quite good with all aluminium barrel 90 degrees of focusing ring rotation when going from infinity to the MFD The focusing ring s prong

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/entry/a-guide-to-russian-ltm-lenses-part-2 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Best Of The Best Of The Best... With Honors - 100mm Macro Comparison (Part 2) - SLR Lens Review
    in test region placement specifically around corners there is no way for me to quantify the difference since I did not measure it but roughly speaking Voigtlander s measurement points were somewhat closer to the center of the frame than with other lenses All pictures were taken in RAW format and Adobe RGB color space and then converted into max quality JPEG using ACR All ACR settings were set to zeros And now without any further ado here are the MTF50 charts for the tested four lenses MTF50 Center Canon 5DMk2 MTF50 Corners Canon 5DMk2 MTF50 Center Canon 5DMk2 MTF50 Corners Canon 5DMk2 Ohh my what do we have here Canon is clearly the laggard at f 2 8 and not just by a hair This is surprising to me I tested a different sample of this lens back a few years ago and I don t remember it being that significantly off around borders at f 2 8 Granted though that I tested that lens on a lower resolution cameras 10Mp Canon XTi and 12Mp Canon 5D Actually let me step back a bit and start by saying that if I were reviewing each of these lenses in isolation I would have probably given them fairly high marks in the resolution department Canon sticks out by a lot because the other lenses have just a darn high resolution particularly Carl Zeiss Even Canon s center resolution is pretty high just not as high as Zeiss but high enough It s just Canon s border resolution at f 2 8 that is showcasing some weakness if we look at the crops from the imaging target below we would cleealy see the delta that Imatest is pointing to The rest of the pack lenses that is have a fairly similar set of characteristics center or borders There are some differences here and there most of them are within 10 15 variance threshold and even Canon shows very good numbers from f 4 and on Carl Zeiss is the clear leader here and it bests all other lenses throughout the aperture range in some cases just by a hairline but still the leader Leica and Voigtlander are pretty uniform across the frame and don t show significant variance from aperture to aperture So it s probably safe to say that all lenses except Canon have superb resolving capacity But what should we do with Canon though The weakness it is showing is not due to the focusing error I ve tested and re tested this lens a dozen times The lens does have a very short focusing thrust making it a huge PITA to focus manually since even a tini tiny shift in the focusing ring results in a huge focusing changes And trying to auto focus it on a target forget bout it AF ends up all over the map but practically never exactly on target Yea I don t want to rush with any conclusions yet let s see how

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/entry/100mm-macro-comparison-part2 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Guide To Russian LTM Lenses - SLR Lens Review
    50s and 60s A couple of different variations of this lens were available the most common version you will encounter these days will be collapsible variant There were also a couple versions made with rigid body but those are not very common these days and typically command a slight premium optically all Industar 22s are same You will also find a few models with Russian У U at the end of the inscription or without a metering scale these are enlarger lenses and you would probably want to stay away from them The collapsible Indusr 22 also had minor variations and you will find copies with focusing limter and without it You wil also encounter a variant of Industar 22 labeled FED 50 3 5 or FED 5cm 3 5 it is the same lens but manufactured at Kharkiv factory rather than at KMZ and bundled with FED cameras Don t confuse this with FED 50 3 5 macro lens Finally a limted test batch of this lens was released in M42x1 mount although those have become quite rare Industar 22 was manufactured continuously from mid 40s through late 50s when it was replaced by Industar 50 The lens was available exclusively in M39 mount The very first copies of the lens were uncoated while versions from mid 50s were single coated The lens is widespread on eBay with regular collapsible copies going for 50 Industar 22 alex photo Industar 22 Enlarger biggerby2002 Fed 5 3 5 artemstore Quick Facts Optics 4 elements 3 groups Filter size 36mm push on MFD 1 25m f scale f 3 5 f 16 Weight 80g Resolution c b 32 22 Availability Very Common Market price 50 2012 Industar 26m 52 2 8 Another Leitz Elmar derivative Industar 26m was introduced in mid 50s and was a kit lens for Zokri 2 Mir rangefinder cameras The lens was manufactured in both M39x1 and M42x1 mounts although M42x1 versions are extremely rare there was a very small batch manufactured in the early years and these versions are close to impossible to find these days An enlarger version of Industar 26m was also manufactured these can be identified either by the Russian У U at the end of inscription or by the lack of focusing scale The lens was manufactured only in chrome finish and non collapsible barrel although a couple of different barrel variations existed The lens was mass produced through 70s and is readily available these days with copies going for 20 Industar 26n artemstore Industar 26 Enlarger moscowphoto Quick Facts Optics 4 elements 3 groups Filter size 40 5mm screw on MFD 1m f scale f 2 8 f 22 Weight 100g Resolution c b 30 12 Availability Very Common Market price 20 2012 Industar 50 52 3 5 A replacement of Industar 22 with essentially the same optical formula The lens was manufactured in two mounts m39x1 and M42x1 Labeling of this lens is bit confusing as the earliest versions which were labeled Industar 50 were available in both mounts early M42x1 versions are hard to find these days while later versions labeled as Industar 50 2 were available only in M42x1 The original 50 was available in both collapsible as well as rigid body and chrome finish while the 50 2 versions were manufactured only as rigids with black finish First mass produced Russian lens exported to the West typically as a kit lens for Zorki 3 rangefinder A fairly common lens particularly 50 2 in M42x1 mount with copies going for 30 Industar 50 johnzp90 Industar 50 2 artemstore Quick Facts Optics 4 elements 3 groups Filter size 36mm push on MFD 1m f scale f 3 5 f 16 Weight 112g Resolution c b 32 22 Availability Very Common Market price 30 2012 Industar 61Л 50 2 8 and Industar 61Л Д 53 2 8 55 2 8 The lens with most confusing labeling Industar 61 was manufactured in a couple of different mounts as well as a fixed lens for FED 10 11 cameras This was another mass produced Soviet lens that was experted to the West which probably contributed to the confusing labeling This is a variation of Leitz ELmar 50 2 8 Manufactured since early 70s Rigid body Early versions available in chrome later ones in black or black with chrome Industar 61 manufactured by FED in M39x1 mount and carried different labels for focal length the three known versions are 50 2 8 53 2 8 and 55 2 8 Some copies labeled И 61 and some labaled in English Two other M39 copies were manufactured Industar 61Л and Industar 51Л Д The first one labeled as 50 2 8 while the second one sometimes as 53 2 8 and sometimes as 55 2 8 M42x1 versions labeled as Industar 61M Industar 61A Industar 61 3 and Industar 61Л 3 The first Russian lens to use rare earth minerals in treating glass surfaces the rangefinder versions of this lens used lanthanum glass Early versions are single coated while later ones have multi coating Some copies manufactured for export have a typo in label instead of MC to indicate multi coating they are labelled MS A mass produced lens but some variations are more common than others Industar 61Л Д 61L D are the most common with copies going for 15 Industar 61 artemstor Industar 61L D artemstor Quick Facts Optics 4 elements 3 groups Filter size 40 5mm screw on MFD 1m f scale f 2 8 f 16 Weight 130g Resolution c b 44 30 Availability Very Common Market price 15 2012 Orion 15 28 6 A clone of pre war Carl Zeiss Topogon The lens was manufactured in M39x1 and Contax bayonet mounts The lens was first released in 1950 and entered mass production in mid 50s Rigid low profile body Manufactured in chrome although a limited batch was manufactured in black these were manufactured for export and had a Made in USSR

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/entry/a-guide-to-russian-ltm-lenses (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Best Of The Best Of The Best... With Honors - 100mm Macro Comparison - SLR Lens Review
    macro lenses I never really planned to keep all four but always wanted to do a shootout The first 100mm macro comparison went online about two years ago but I always felt it was incomplete and so kept all lenses for that day when I get enough time to compare them more extensively side by side This day is now PS Some of you may say Wheeeel Four lenses is great but you re missing a few nice ones That s true Among the lenses I would have loved to have for this test are Canon EF 100mm f 2 8L IS USM Tamron SP 90mm f 2 8 and Sigma 105mm f 2 8 EX DG OS HSM Ohh well maybe another day The Process Here is what we gonna do in this comparison We are going to start with basic overview of the lenses build capabilities pricing etc Really basic stuff Then we will do a standard MTF test with Imatest at one focusing distance 10m this would give us all the usual MTF50 lateral CA and vignetting information Then we are going to take it to streets so to speak and check out how the lenses perform at infinity subjective resolution wise that is The fun start after this step we will do a whole bunch of additional testing in this step specifically macro test bokeh rendering color reproduction and some more color fringing tests Phew that s a lot of testing The whole review will be split into several parts The Basics Key Stats Lens Canon Leica Zeiss VL Retail Price 499 1 500 1 843 2 200 FOV 100mm 100mm 100mm 125mm MFD 31cm 70cm 44cm 38cm Focusing 150 720 360 680 f stop Scale f 2 8 32 1 3 f 2 22 1 2 f 2 22 1 3 f 2 5 22 1 3 Filter Size 58mm 60mm 67mm 58mm Barrel Plastic Fixed Metal Coll Metal Coll Metal Coll Weight 600g 760g 680g 690g Dimensions 79x119mm 73x104mm 76x113mm 88x76mm Legend no longer manufactured prices for used gear on eBay not including caps If we were to judge the content by the cover as they say among the four macros in this review Canon s is the only one that leaves a ho hum initial impression This is unfortunate since this is the only AF lens in the group and the only lens that has a fixed barrel that does not extend during focusing On top of that Canon also offers true 1 1 macro which is matched only by Voigtlander Both Zeiss and Leica are 1 2 macros but Leica offers an optional 1 1 ELPRO adapter while Zeiss currently does not make one Canon also bests the other lenses in a couple of other categories being the lightest although not by much I guess the weight savings from plastic construction are lost to the built in AF motor and cheapest lens While Canon has the cheapest feel to it because of

    Original URL path: http://slrlensreview.com/web/entry/100mm-macro-comparison-part1 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive



  •