I prefer to test my lenses with a portrait image with open f. Skin tone, shadow details of the face, bokeh, details into the shadows are much better than a landscape. The Zeiss Planar lenses for example.. you can see the magician of this lenses with a portrait about at 3/4 meters from the subject and with f5.6. The subject get out from the print! Japanese lenses doesn't have this... but in the landscapes and infinity focus are good almost like a Zeiss.
Thank you, very interesting! I only have PS Versions. I think the aperture half stops are a good argument for PS. But you show, that also the quality of the 150 PS is far better than the S. With the limitation that some lenses very completely new constructions like the 150. And others like the 80mm were not improved so much.
Thank you for your effort. Not meaning to trash your "test" but I don't see any reason why not to use tripod and mirror lock-up for a planned test of two different lenses. Flare resistance is clearly demonstrated and there are no doubts about that. But comparing sharpness (as you yourself mentioned somewhere around 6:35) this way is not a good idea. I would love to see a comparison in low grain b&w negative (Ilford PanF+ 50 or Fuji Acros) + already mentioned bokeh comparison. Good light!
@@SprocketHoles I suspect that I know what you mean by a "real world test", but why bother? The idea of lens tests is to determine what the lens can do without diluting that information with no tripod shaky hand-held or using film so fast that it cannot distinguish the lens performance difference. Once armed with true lens data, the user can make his own choices on where to compromise the total imaging experience. This is just playing around. And, when the PS lenses came out, Bronica was quite clear on their superior performance. Other manufacturers have done similar upgrades to their lenses without being so open about it. For example, Pentax did a major overhaul of their 67 system lenses in the mid-1980s. Some were just modestly redesigned optically (300mm 4.0; 55mm 4.0) and some were replaced (150mm dropped for 165mm replacement).
My only debate on choosing PS or S lenses is the selection of the 50mm lenses. S 50 has a 67mm diameter threshold which is same as 65 80 110 150 lenses, while PS 50 have 77mm diameter threshold. One old lenses repair technician told me that the lens structure of S 50 is pretty much the same as the PS 50, while the coating is different. Telephoto lenses like 150 250 etc. the lens structures are dramatically different between S and PS lens. For the sack of saving money on filters I chose S 50 as the 50mm length. Other lenses I chose PS lenses.
Which is quite interesting, because telephoto lenses were always much easier to design, so I expected most changes would be done in the lower focal length region, and not in the longer region.
It may be just me, but the trees in the deer picture look crisper with the S lens. I doubt the focus was a bit nearer with the PS lens than with the S lens. Flare resistance was noticeably better with the PS lens, though.
I prefer to test my lenses with a portrait image with open f. Skin tone, shadow details of the face, bokeh, details into the shadows are much better than a landscape. The Zeiss Planar lenses for example.. you can see the magician of this lenses with a portrait about at 3/4 meters from the subject and with f5.6. The subject get out from the print! Japanese lenses doesn't have this... but in the landscapes and infinity focus are good almost like a Zeiss.
Thanks for the in depth comparison, good to know it's worth to hunt for ps lenses even with those insane inflated prices
Thank you, very interesting! I only have PS Versions. I think the aperture half stops are a good argument for PS. But you show, that also the quality of the 150 PS is far better than the S. With the limitation that some lenses very completely new constructions like the 150. And others like the 80mm were not improved so much.
which is better, simil mamiya?
Thank you for your effort. Not meaning to trash your "test" but I don't see any reason why not to use tripod and mirror lock-up for a planned test of two different lenses. Flare resistance is clearly demonstrated and there are no doubts about that. But comparing sharpness (as you yourself mentioned somewhere around 6:35) this way is not a good idea. I would love to see a comparison in low grain b&w negative (Ilford PanF+ 50 or Fuji Acros) + already mentioned bokeh comparison. Good light!
I should remove all the variables f or a better for exact test but I was going to a real world use case rather than a scientific test.
@@SprocketHoles I suspect that I know what you mean by a "real world test", but why bother? The idea of lens tests is to determine what the lens can do without diluting that information with no tripod shaky hand-held or using film so fast that it cannot distinguish the lens performance difference. Once armed with true lens data, the user can make his own choices on where to compromise the total imaging experience. This is just playing around. And, when the PS lenses came out, Bronica was quite clear on their superior performance. Other manufacturers have done similar upgrades to their lenses without being so open about it. For example, Pentax did a major overhaul of their 67 system lenses in the mid-1980s. Some were just modestly redesigned optically (300mm 4.0; 55mm 4.0) and some were replaced (150mm dropped for 165mm replacement).
@@randallstewart175 it was a test to see if there is enough of a difference between the lenses for me and how I shoot a lot of the time, thats it.
My only debate on choosing PS or S lenses is the selection of the 50mm lenses. S 50 has a 67mm diameter threshold which is same as 65 80 110 150 lenses, while PS 50 have 77mm diameter threshold. One old lenses repair technician told me that the lens structure of S 50 is pretty much the same as the PS 50, while the coating is different. Telephoto lenses like 150 250 etc. the lens structures are dramatically different between S and PS lens. For the sack of saving money on filters I chose S 50 as the 50mm length. Other lenses I chose PS lenses.
Which is quite interesting, because telephoto lenses were always much easier to design, so I expected most changes would be done in the lower focal length region, and not in the longer region.
Amazing video comparison thank you ❤️
good video, that film certainly had you "foiled" !! (pun here); but it is just easier with a pair of scissors.
3:40 lol
It may be just me, but the trees in the deer picture look crisper with the S lens. I doubt the focus was a bit nearer with the PS lens than with the S lens. Flare resistance was noticeably better with the PS lens, though.
hello !, which is the best f/2.8 for use on EOS R?
Really appreciate and enjoy the effort expended in film unwrapping.
Thanks!
Get a tripod.
great job!