In a prior post, I mentioned trying to find the perfect lens for flower photography. And how I was going to do some tests with the lenses mentioned within said post.
Well, this isn't that test. It's another test. A test with very similar focal-length lenses, and with similar apertures. This is the Battle of the 50mm or Thereabouts Lenses for Photographing Clematis!
What are the contenders in today's test? Well, we have a trio of legacy 50mm lenses from a variety of mounts. And also an auto-focus lens specifically designed for Micro Four Thirds.
I'll be the first to say that none of this was done under controlled conditions. Outside, windy, hand-held and manual focus. But I think it is possible to get a feel for the difference between the lenses.
From the outset, it is obvious that the Lumix performs the best out of the quartet in sharpness while also delivery very nice out of focus areas. I'm not overly impressed with the Jupiter-8 in either sharpness or how it render the out of focus bits - the Voigtlander and Helios both do a better job at this.
Both the Voigtlander and Helios display swirly bokeh of sorts, though the Voigtlander's is definitely smoother compared to the quite "bally" Helios. I also believe the Voigtlander to actually be a longer focal length than 50mm, as is evident from the slightly closer crop, possibly a 58mm.
Next up we have the closest-focussing-distance of the lenses.
Again, the Jupiter-8 fails to impress, with the other two manual 50mm lenses getting nice and close to a single flower. The Voigtlander has better sharpness here, but both render a nice image. And the Lumix once more trumps all with not only closer-focussing, but a sharper image with better controlled chromatic aberation.
Why would you choose any of the legacy manual lenses to shoot on your modern mirrorless camera? Well, a multitude of reasons. You might not know if ~50mm is a focal-length that you enjoy shooting, or you might not have the budget for one of the OEM auto-focus lenses. You can easily pick up any of the manual lenses mentioned for less than £30 on eBay - then all you need is the right adapter to mount on your mirrorless camera, which can be purchased from eBay, Amazon or a variety of other sites, and typically retail for around £20.
You may also already have a portrait-length lens, and decide that you fancy experimenting with something that exhibits a bit of character, that doesn't render every single pore on a person's face pin-sharp.
Of the above, I struggle to recommend the Jupiter-8 for anything, other than perhaps being smaller and lighter than the Helios and Voigtlander primes. Perhaps it works better on a film rangerfinder than a mirrorless camera - both manual SLR primes worked brilliantly in the test.
Well, this isn't that test. It's another test. A test with very similar focal-length lenses, and with similar apertures. This is the Battle of the 50mm or Thereabouts Lenses for Photographing Clematis!
What are the contenders in today's test? Well, we have a trio of legacy 50mm lenses from a variety of mounts. And also an auto-focus lens specifically designed for Micro Four Thirds.
- Jupiter-8 f/2 50mm - m39-mount
- Helios-44 f/1.8 50mm - m42-mount
- Voigtlander Color-Ultron f/1.8 50mm - Q-mount
- Lumix f/1.7 42.5mm - Micro Four Thirds mount
Jupiter-8 f/2 50mm | Helios-44 f/1.8 50mm |
 |
 |
| ISO200, f/2, 1/8000 sec | ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec |
Voigtlander Color-Ultron f/1.8 50mm | Lumix f/1.7 42.5mm |
 |
 |
| ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec | ISO200, f/1.7, 1/8000 sec |
I'll be the first to say that none of this was done under controlled conditions. Outside, windy, hand-held and manual focus. But I think it is possible to get a feel for the difference between the lenses.
From the outset, it is obvious that the Lumix performs the best out of the quartet in sharpness while also delivery very nice out of focus areas. I'm not overly impressed with the Jupiter-8 in either sharpness or how it render the out of focus bits - the Voigtlander and Helios both do a better job at this.
Both the Voigtlander and Helios display swirly bokeh of sorts, though the Voigtlander's is definitely smoother compared to the quite "bally" Helios. I also believe the Voigtlander to actually be a longer focal length than 50mm, as is evident from the slightly closer crop, possibly a 58mm.
Next up we have the closest-focussing-distance of the lenses.
Jupiter-8 f/2 50mm | Helios-44 f/1.8 50mm |
 |
 |
| ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec | ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec |
Voigtlander Color-Ultron f/1.8 50mm | Lumix f/1.7 42.5mm |
 |  |
| ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec | ISO200, f/1.8, 1/8000 sec |
Again, the Jupiter-8 fails to impress, with the other two manual 50mm lenses getting nice and close to a single flower. The Voigtlander has better sharpness here, but both render a nice image. And the Lumix once more trumps all with not only closer-focussing, but a sharper image with better controlled chromatic aberation.
Why would you choose any of the legacy manual lenses to shoot on your modern mirrorless camera? Well, a multitude of reasons. You might not know if ~50mm is a focal-length that you enjoy shooting, or you might not have the budget for one of the OEM auto-focus lenses. You can easily pick up any of the manual lenses mentioned for less than £30 on eBay - then all you need is the right adapter to mount on your mirrorless camera, which can be purchased from eBay, Amazon or a variety of other sites, and typically retail for around £20.
You may also already have a portrait-length lens, and decide that you fancy experimenting with something that exhibits a bit of character, that doesn't render every single pore on a person's face pin-sharp.
Of the above, I struggle to recommend the Jupiter-8 for anything, other than perhaps being smaller and lighter than the Helios and Voigtlander primes. Perhaps it works better on a film rangerfinder than a mirrorless camera - both manual SLR primes worked brilliantly in the test.
Comments
Post a Comment