Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 3.5/135mm
(Full-Size High Quality JPEG,
Note: the leftmost two books by de Maupassant are about 3cm behind the
plane of focus.
100% Crops from near the upper right corners:
Pentacon electric 2.8/135mm:
Carl Zeiss Jena MC S 3.5/135mm:
The CZJ Sonnar has a much better sharpness and contrast than the Pentacon.
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 3.5/135mm:
The Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, however, seems here to be even better than
the CZJ Sonnar.
Taking into account the limitations of the 350D, the image could hardly
be any better.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm:
Well, the Sonnar just might be better.
(Full-Size High Quality
JPEG, 2.6Mb. Note: this photo was taken on a different occasion
and the books on the left have been moved to the same depth as the rest.)
- at this magnification and resolution level, even very small inaccuracies
in focusing have quite large an effect
- I was lucky with the Takumar as already the first shot was so sharp it
would have been silly even to try to get a sharper one -- with the other
lenses, I took about ten photos and selected the sharpest one.
- the differences between the lenses are, in practice, rather minor
- the non-MC Pentacon has an appreciably lower contrast than the other two
- the tested Super-Multi-Coated Takumar is embarrassingly good
compared with the highly regarded CZJ S(onnar), but this result may be
spurious as there is a certain amount of variation even within the same
manufacturing lot so maybe the Takumar is just an above average specimen
and the Sonnar an inferior one -- for a Sonnar, that is.
Printed at 254dpi (15.6x magnification), the whole image would be 34.6cm (13.6")
wide and the above crop would be 7.3cm (slightly less than 3") wide,
i.e. something like: