These lenses are a lot older than the other ones so I guess that’s why. Shooting them wide open both was unusable, stepping them down the Biotar got better but the Mir was still unusable. I actually heard good things about the Biometar as a good portrait lens and that the Mir was supposed to be very sharp. The Both Pentacon Six lenses (Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar 80mm f2.8 and the Mir 26b 45mm f3.5) was disappointing.Here are a small cropped area of each test photo, aperture is f11, raw files are unprocessed. But I know some people are gonna disagree. Dropping digital or cropping with a smaller sensor is the same. Since the focal lengths are so different (from very long to very wide angle) it was hard to get the exact same framing, but I think it’s still possible to make a conclusion based on the test photos.ĭoes it matter that it was tested on aps-c and not medium format? I don’t think so, it’s just a crop. The test was done indoor shooting a bunch of object with the same lighting and with the same camera settings (iso200, fixed white balance) on a tripod. I don’t have any experience comparing lenses like this, so I’m sorry if I oversee something. Shot with Mamiya 645 Sekor C 210mm f4 f4 on Fujifilm X-T20. But how do they all compare and how do they compare with modern lenses? I made this comparison test to figure out. I bought a lot of older medium format cameras and lenses through the years, to shoot film and to use with my Fotodiox Rhinocam adapter with the Fujifilm X cameras (will write more about the Rhinocam soon). Notice: People have wrote me that some of the lenses might be bad copies, take that into account when you look at the lens test and try to compare it to other lens tests online.
0 kommentar(er)
