Lens Colours

[Frogfish]

OK a quick down and dirty test session that is only designed to show the straight out of the camera (SD card directly to the Web) colours from different lenses. Sorry but my CZ 85/1.4 was dropped off to have a touch of dust removed and has not yet been returned otherwise that would be included in the testing.

Tripod - 2 sec delay (I guess not really needed but better than some blurry shots).
Climatic Conditions : dry, bright, cloudless, end of Nov (Northern Hemisphere), very windy though.
Av - ISO 80
No EV adjustment.
In camera jpg settings were mistakenly taken at Bright (all neutral) rather than the Natural I always shoot at (this is the new K5 not my older K5 and I had forgotten to change the jpg setting).  However hopefully that won't detract too much from displaying the differences in colour displayed by each lens/manufacturer.

Lenses (all shot wide open and then at f5.6). Shooting in AV mode to retain ISO and f-stop, I was very surprised at the difference in metering and shutter speeds selected by the K5 between f stops and lenses.

1. Sigma 50-150 (shot at 50mm) @ 2.8

2. @ 5.6

3. Sigma 30 @ 1.4

4. @ 5.6

5. Contax Zeiss 28mm @ 2.8

6. @ 5.6

7. Voigtlander 50mm @ 1.8

8. @ 5.6

9. Cosina (hey they make Zeiss & Voigtlander right !) 55mm @ 1.2

10. @ 5.6

11. Cosina 35-70mm (shot at 50mm) @ 4

12. @ 5.6

13. Tamron 90 Di macro @ 2.8

14. @ 5.6

15. Tamron 17-50 (shot at 35mm) @ 2.8

16. @ 5.6

17. Pentax 43 Ltd @ 1.9

18. @ 5.6

19. Pentax 15 Ltd @ 4

20. @ 5.6


Full sized shots are on my SmugMug site below (under Test Shots).

[Pacerr]

Thanks, FF -- an interesting exhibit. But owing to the many variables, I derived something from it that's different than the color bias between lenses you intended.

Although the relative difference between the images is obvious, the apparent relative difference in rendering between exposures for any single lens is more relevant to me in these examples. The effect on saturation and luminosity owing to EV variables might be something to take into consideration. Although these could be adjusted to a great extent in PP, without side-by-side comparison shots any tweaking in PP would be purely subjective and arbitrary, and perhaps more affective, than lens color biases.

Lens color biases could presumably be "equalized" in PP , even through the convenience of batch pre-sets if desired. With the PP and in-camera controls and adjustments available today with digital "filtration" I simply don't see an excessive need for concern about equipment variables that was relevant in the pre-digital era -- except as after dinner conversation topics.

H2

(What Ron's publishers might have to say about "bias adjustments" is only a factor if they know the difference.  )

[davidhampshire]

can i ask, which of these shots do you ,  frogfish,  feel is the best for exposure,  sharpness,  etc,   and which lens do you think is best,  of these for this test that you did?      dave

[Ron Kruger]

I really appreciate it when someone goes to this much trouble and shares the results. I did a number of tests of the same scene with various ISOs, and came to the conclusion that everything--not just noise--is better at lower ISOs. A very interesting thing I got from your examples is that colors and contrasts are much better when any lens is stopped down too.

[calsan]

Wow, the DA15 at 5.6 looks fantastic - I'd say the colours are the best of the bunch and not just because of the wider angle...
  The Cosina at 1.2 makes the scene look like a Kate Bush music video - I expect to see her wafting into that scene in a diaphanous dress any moment now.

I expect the different metering results are in some small part because there is different light transmission characteristics for different glass and coatings.
So just because the aperture is the same on two different lenses, doesn't mean the same amount of light is getting through to the sensor.
I find the DA limited lenses tend to let more light through than their aperture number would suggest, wheras, my FA lenses aren't as good.  I'm a DA lens fan these days.

Can easily see an example of this when comparing a cheap or old 10x50 binocular with a decent modern 10x50. There's more light in the second, despite both having 50mm aperture and same magnification - just due to better glass and coatings.  It's even possible to have a really good 40 or 42mm binocular that's better than a 50, thanks to pricey glass and coatings.  So my point is, don't judge glass by it's aperture.

[Frogfish]

Thanks, FF -- an interesting exhibit. But owing to the many variables, I derived something from it that's different than the color bias between lenses you intended.

Although the relative difference between the images is obvious, the apparent relative difference in rendering between exposures for any single lens is more relevant to me in these examples. The effect on saturation and luminosity owing to EV variables might be something to take into consideration. Although these could be adjusted to a great extent in PP, without side-by-side comparison shots any tweaking in PP would be purely subjective and arbitrary, and perhaps more affective, than lens color biases.

Lens color biases could presumably be "equalized" in PP , even through the convenience of batch pre-sets if desired. With the PP and in-camera controls and adjustments available today with digital "filtration" I simply don't see an excessive need for concern about equipment variables that was relevant in the pre-digital era -- except as after dinner conversation topics.

H2

(What Ron's publishers might have to say about "bias adjustments" is only a factor if they know the difference.  )

Thanks for the comments H2.  That is an interesting viewpoint.

I too had been looking at these closely but for a different purpose, I have been trying to figure out why there was a huge difference in apparent exposure. My conclusion was that as I usually have my cameras set to spot metering that maybe a slight vertical change in the focus point (the bush above the rock dead centre) whilst changing the lens may have influenced the metering on one or two shots - especially the Voigtlander @ 5.6, because this is a wonderful, rock-solid, lens.

[Frogfish]

can i ask, which of these shots do you ,  frogfish,  feel is the best for exposure,  sharpness,  etc,   and which lens do you think is best,  of these for this test that you did?      dave

Sorry for the slow reply gentlemen. Work again intruded on my life.

Such a simple question Dave. Laden with danger and the potential for gross inaccuracies !

I don't think it is possible to judge which lens is best in a simple test like this, and in fact even in a comprehensive test it still doesn't mean that one lens could not out-perform another in a specific situation.

I won't comment on the best of the shots above for exposure (too many variables in a scen like this) or sharpness (I wasn't testing for this and would have performed the tests slightly differently if I were) but I will comment on a couple of the lenses.

The 15 Ltd - this is a truly wonderful lens that gives rich colours straight out of the camera (as seen above, I didn't expect any less and knew before shooting that the 15 would give the richest colours).

The Zeiss - the cool colours above are very typical Zeiss colours. Some like it some don't easy to add saturation later in PP if you don't.

The Cosina zoom - for a $30 zoom it doesn't embarrass itself, though of course there is no way it can come close to the primes/Sigma zoom in those stakes.

IMHO all of the other lenses are tremendous performers, some better in some instances that others but all having their different strengths and weaknesses.

[Frogfish]

I really appreciate it when someone goes to this much trouble and shares the results. I did a number of tests of the same scene with various ISOs, and came to the conclusion that everything--not just noise--is better at lower ISOs. A very interesting thing I got from your examples is that colors and contrasts are much better when any lens is stopped down too.

My pleasure Ron. You queried in another thread the difference between the Sigmas and the Zeiss lenses. I was surprised in this one how much warmer the Sigmas were ... I hadn't really noticed they were that much warmer than the Zeiss as they always see relatively cool when compared to Pentax.

Colours/Contrast - yes I believe that too be true. However wide open offers something else (especially when using them at f1.2 or f1.4) and colour/contrast can always be added in PP.

[Frogfish]

Wow, the DA15 at 5.6 looks fantastic - I'd say the colours are the best of the bunch and not just because of the wider angle...
  The Cosina at 1.2 makes the scene look like a Kate Bush music video - I expect to see her wafting into that scene in a diaphanous dress any moment now.

I expect the different metering results are in some small part because there is different light transmission characteristics for different glass and coatings.
So just because the aperture is the same on two different lenses, doesn't mean the same amount of light is getting through to the sensor.
I find the DA limited lenses tend to let more light through than their aperture number would suggest, wheras, my FA lenses aren't as good.  I'm a DA lens fan these days.

Can easily see an example of this when comparing a cheap or old 10x50 binocular with a decent modern 10x50. There's more light in the second, despite both having 50mm aperture and same magnification - just due to better glass and coatings.  It's even possible to have a really good 40 or 42mm binocular that's better than a 50, thanks to pricey glass and coatings.  So my point is, don't judge glass by it's aperture.

The 15 Ltd produces those gorgeous full rich colours straight out of the camera in almost any scene you shoot with it (and wonderful starbursts, it's sharp too) - it is a truly excellent lens.

Cosina 55/1.2 : That is f1.2 for you. Place an X for the spot in focus    Superb lens for bokeh.

That is a very interesting conclusion re. coatings and I have to admit something I had not considered as a major influencing factor, which of course it must be. I'm going to have to look out for that in future.

[davidhampshire]

i think i like that 15mm .  gotta save up.   

[Rick Clark]

After a long time reviewing the pictures I like #18 the best and #19 as second and #5 as the top three lenses for colour and the amount of light in the pic and the focus.

[Ron Kruger]

One of the reasons I switched to Pentax was lens as good as Zeiss at less than half the price. I personally think the DA 15mm should be envied by Zeiss. All lenses, and especially very fast lenses, are better and render differently when stopped down a click or two.