Test Comparing 8 Lenses at 3.4x Online

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Test Comparing 8 Lenses at 3.4x Online

Post by RobertOToole »

Image

https://www.closeuphotography.com/35mm-lens-test

Lens lineup includes:

Canon Macro Photo 35mm f/2.8 Lens - Extension
Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens -Normal
Copal 35mm f4 E18C Printing Machine Lens - Stacked
JML 21mm f/3.5 Lens - Extension
Noritsu 32mm f4 Printing Machine Lens - Stacked
Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Industrial Lens - Stacked
Schneider Componon 35mm f4 (at f/2.2) Industrial Lens - Stacked
Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 Industrial Len
s - Stacked
Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Copy Lens - Stacked

This test was a follow up to an earlier test at 3.4x from last year: https://www.closeuphotography.com/three ... -lens-test

Camera: Sony A6300, model # ILCE-6300
Sensor size: APS-C. 23.5 × 15.6 mm. 28.21 mm diagonal. 3.92 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block

A series of images was made with each lens in 4 micron steps and the sharpest frame was then chosen using Photoshop at 100% view. Separate images were selected for each crop area as needed. Each image was processed in PS CC with identical settings with all noise reduction and lens correction turned off, all settings were zeroed out (true zero) and the same settings were used for all of the images. All of the crop images shown here are single files. None of the crop images are stacked.

These are the center crop areas at 100%, click on an image to open a full size version, you can also right or two finger click and download.

You can also check out the off-center and corner crop images on my site, link at the top.

3.4X 100% VIEW CENTER CROPS: FOCUS BY EXTENSION

Canon Macro Photo 35mm f/2.8 Lens
Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
JML 21mm f/3.5 Lens


Image

Best: Canon MP35

3.4X 100% VIEW CENTER CROPS: STACKED LENSES

Copal 35mm f4 E18C Printing Machine Lens
Noritsu 32mm f4 Printing Machine Lens
Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Copy Lens


Image

Best: Noritsu 32mm

3.4X 100% VIEW CENTER CROPS: FAST STACKED LENSES

Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Industrial Lens
Schneider Componon 35mm f4 (f/2.2) Industrial Lens
Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 Industrial Lens


Image

Best: SK Componon and Xenon.


Standouts of the test?

The Noritsu 32mm, the sleeper lens of the test, slow at f/4 but very consistent and zero CAs, and the Componon / Xenon were crisp clean and sharp edge to edge even at f/2.2!

2500px size image with the SK Xenon:
Image


Any questions or comments welcome.

Best,

Robert

chris_ma
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:23 pm
Location: Germany

Post by chris_ma »

lovely article and always good to see that there are different options out there, even low cost ones. thanks for all the work Robert.

one question I've been wondering for a while:
when you write about the SK MS 120mm as a tube lens, which mag are you usually using?

I seem to remember seeing a pic with a 0.5x version somewhere on your site, but I suspect you have several ;)

chris

lonepal
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by lonepal »

Hi Robert;

Nice work as always.
Regards.
Omer

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

chris_ma wrote:lovely article and always good to see that there are different options out there, even low cost ones. thanks for all the work Robert.
Hi Chris,

The results were especially eye-opening for me so glad to hear you enjoyed it. Thanks.

one question I've been wondering for a while:
when you write about the SK MS 120mm as a tube lens, which mag are you usually using?
For this test I used the SR 5.6/120-0059 model, magnification is optimized for at 0.75x. You can see lots of images of the actual lens here: https://www.closeuphotography.com/schne ... mar-sr-120

Lens focused at infinity and mounted in the normal direction.

I know that other posters on the forum don't give much weight to tube lens performance when it comes to final image quality but the SR120s and a few others really are special giving you a nice flat fields and at the same time being able to correct or cancel CAs. I think the TL performance makes a world of difference.
I seem to remember seeing a pic with a 0.5x version somewhere on your site, but I suspect you have several ;)
Yes, true, and with the SR120 lenses the mag version it doesn't seem to make much different though, they all seem to make excellent tube lenses.

Best,

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

lonepal wrote:Hi Robert;

Nice work as always.
Thanks Lonepal!

:D

typestar
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:45 am
Location: Austria

Your hard work

Post by typestar »

Thankyou Robert

for all your hard work, again!

Nice to see your (new) findings and the power of the Xenon 35 mm lens(es).
It will be harder now to find new undiscovered (and "cheap" treasures... 8)

My best wishes to you,

Christian

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Your hard work

Post by RobertOToole »

typestar wrote:Thankyou Robert

for all your hard work, again!

Nice to see your (new) findings and the power of the Xenon 35 mm lens(es).
It will be harder now to find new undiscovered (and "cheap" treasures... 8)

My best wishes to you,

Christian
Thanks Christian.

Yes, I'm lucky being able to grab a nice 2/28 and 2/35 in like-new condition for little money on eBay a long time ago but FYI, the 2/50 in the same housing type of barrel isn't nearly as good as the wider Xenons in regards to CA control.

The 28 and 35 are special quality lenses it seems to me that SK didn't cut corners when it came to glass selection when they built these years and years ago.

Best,

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

chris_ma wrote:lovely article and always good to see that there are different options out there, even low cost ones. thanks for all the work Robert.

one question I've been wondering for a while:
when you write about the SK MS 120mm as a tube lens, which mag are you usually using?

I seem to remember seeing a pic with a 0.5x version somewhere on your site, but I suspect you have several ;)

chris
Image

Some useful data on the SR120 range of lenses from SK used as a tube lens for this test, one of my favorite lenses BTW.

Mag range on the left and part numbers on the highlighted in blue.

The lens is called a 5,6/120 in one place but the aperture value and iris range is listed as f/5,9. I actually measured f/6 on this lens and slightly wider f/5.8 with the consumer version of the makro-symmar.

Best,

Robert

lonepal
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by lonepal »

RobertOToole wrote:
chris_ma wrote:lovely article and always good to see that there are different options out there, even low cost ones. thanks for all the work Robert.

one question I've been wondering for a while:
when you write about the SK MS 120mm as a tube lens, which mag are you usually using?

I seem to remember seeing a pic with a 0.5x version somewhere on your site, but I suspect you have several ;)

chris
Image

Some useful data on the SR120 range of lenses from SK used as a tube lens for this test, one of my favorite lenses BTW.

Mag range on the left and part numbers on the highlighted in blue.

The lens is called a 5,6/120 in one place but the aperture value and iris range is listed as f/5,9. I actually measured f/6 on this lens and slightly wider f/5.8 with the consumer version of the makro-symmar.

Best,

Robert
Why the data was checked nearly after 2 years :)
Regards.
Omer

RobertOToole
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

lonepal wrote:
Why the data was checked nearly after 2 years :)

Hi Lonepal,

The reasons for the second test?

Well I wanted to try and new and improved setup for the Componon 4/35 (in the first test the Componon was good at f/3.1 set with the factory iris, this time I removed the center section so it was wide open, f/2 or so, then I stopped down very slightly to f/2.2 but with a paper disk and results were much better).

Also I wanted to see how the Noritsu 32mm would perform, I had never really tested this one.

Then I added another 35mm lens to check, and then another....

Thanks for asking, I'm glad someone noticed :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21261
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

lonepal wrote:Why the data was checked nearly after 2 years :)
lonepal's question makes me wonder about the dates in the signature block of the documentation page: Datum Date 13.4.05 for the drawing, but 29.1.07 for the two checks.

Is that typical for these pages?

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic