What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

I made a spreadsheet for lenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
robin0112358

robin0112358

Active Member
Long before I was aware of this forum, I began tracking all the L-mount lenses in my own spreadsheet. An illness has given me a chance to tidy this up. (Thanks COVID!) Head on over to my blog for the article and spreadsheet download.

Dirk, I haven't compared this to your own tabulation, but feel free to grab any items you need for this website. Could save time!
 
CharlesH said:
It works if I copy that link and paste it in the browser, then it downloads the spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
Yes, same for me using Chrome on Windows. Only works if I copy & paste the link into the browser.

Great spreadsheet. There's no shortage of lenses for L-mount. At least nothing I am wanting for.
 
For the zoom lenses there is a category "fixed aperture". But these lenses don't have fixed apertures, so I don't understand the categories. I suggest having manufacturer categories, like with the prime lenses.
 
CharlesH said:
For the zoom lenses there is a category "fixed aperture". But these lenses don't have fixed apertures, so I don't understand the categories. I suggest having manufacturer categories, like with the prime lenses.
Click to expand...

Was supposed to be "constant aperture". But in any case I have reorganised these as you suggest. Also added two new primes.

Pete_W said:
Yes, same for me using Chrome on Windows. Only works if I copy & paste the link into the browser.
Click to expand...

There's no good reason for this, speaking as a one-time web designer. But I've changed the file name and the link attributes. Might help!
 
robin0112358 said:
Was supposed to be "constant aperture". But in any case I have reorganised these as you suggest. Also added two new primes.



There's no good reason for this, speaking as a one-time web designer. But I've changed the file name and the link attributes. Might help!
Click to expand...
Not sure why but in Brave browser on Android the spreadsheet will not download for me. It runs on chromium so presumably it should work like Google chrome.

I have ad blocking and tracking protection turned off so that's not it I assume. Not sure what the issue is.
 
Great work, thanks for this spreadsheet.
I would not consider all Art lenses „historical“, because some of them have no new version yet, like the 28, 40, 105, 135. Maybe you can add the prices for these lenses, as long they are without follow up
 
If you want to add the RRP for Laowa lenses in Euro, take a look at fotobrenner.de
this company is distributor for Laowa in Germany, so their prices in the shop is more or less the RRP.
 
RBecker said:
If you want to add the RRP for Laowa lenses in Euro, take a look at fotobrenner.de
this company is distributor for Laowa in Germany, so their prices in the shop is more or less the RRP.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. The list started as my own purchase guide some time ago. Many items that I wasn't personally interested in (like over-sized Sigma models) were only added to the spreadsheet for completeness... and this has taken an inordinate amount of time! In the last version I added Leica pricing and have just updated again with the Laowa prices as you requested.

While it's true that some Sigma Art lenses have no updated version, I might not get around to that! (Maybe next version.)

People can expect to pay too much in most cases. :cool:
 
robin0112358 said:
People can expect to pay too much in most cases. :cool:
Click to expand...
In this regard I have a different opinion! Especially the Art 28 and the Art 40 are extraordinary lenses. Both are huge, heavy and will not offer the fastest AF, but are nearly unbeaten in optical performance. The price of theses lenses was reduced some time ago to 749€ each! For lenses that are able to blast rivals in the Zeiss Otus league this price is a no brainer.
Everyone who is interested in these lenses should read this:
 
This is why it's good to have so much choice! There's something for everyone. And I can't disagree with you in an absolute sense, because your needs and interests will be different from mine.

My perspective: I would never use a huge, heavy lens, so it doesn't matter how good it is. But that's me. Regardless, at a certain point any lens is good enough. And that is already the case with tiny vintage lenses. It's already the case with the Lumix primes. Having a technically "better" lens is pointless if you are already at the point of diminishing returns. Which we definitely are.

About the link: It's nice to see some MTF tests. But the method isn't described. In particular, what camera is being used? I guess a Canon. I would love to see MTF tests against the Panasonic primes, which are far lighter, much smaller, and cheaper.

One thing I can dispute is the comparison to the Zeiss 100mm. The description reads "from a resolution standpoint, it’s clearly superior at f/1.4 to the Zeiss at f/2". But as I read the chart, the Zeiss has better edge-to-edge performance and so is superior for it's task as a macro lens. More relevant still would be a chart stopped down, since no-one is using a macro at f/2. This is not just a difference of opinion, but a mistake.

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference." - Spock
 
robin0112358 said:
.

About the link: It's nice to see some MTF tests. But the method isn't described. In particular, what camera is being used? I guess a Canon. I would love to see MTF tests against the Panasonic primes, which are far lighter, much smaller, and cheaper.
Click to expand...
the method is described some dozen threads before, so if you are interested in details you should take some time and read these tests, some are quite interesting.
These tests are real tests without any camera. The measuring device is a very special instrument worth a quarter million dollar! Also the design and build of this device is described in some threads. These threads are nerd talk, but without any comparison I have ever seen. Therefore I have more confidence in thses tests than any test from any photography magazine in the world.
Unfortunately there are no new tests at the moment, the founder and previous owner of the company maybe has no access to this instrument anymore. So actually the last tests are related to somewhere 2020
 
robin0112358 said:
.

One thing I can dispute is the comparison to the Zeiss 100mm. The description reads "from a resolution standpoint, it’s clearly superior at f/1.4 to the Zeiss at f/2". But as I read the chart, the Zeiss has better edge-to-edge performance and so is superior for it's task as a macro lens. More relevant still would be a chart stopped down, since no-one is using a macro at f/2. This is not just a difference of opinion, but a mistake.
Click to expand...
Interesting point: I would never have bought the Zeiss as a Macro only lens, because of the 2.0 aperture. As you said, an aperture of 2.0 makes no real sense for a macro. But this lens wanted to be also a portrait lens and a small tele with 2.0. So the comparison is not to compare 2 macro lenses, it is to compare to teles with big aperture. And doing this in my opinion the Sigma with 1.4 is an extreme lens with incredible performance

If you think that even old glas gives you decent performance or even better, then I think these tests are not for you, becuae you don‘t care about these details. I‘m doing astrophotography for 40 years now and can show you awfull results from some vintage glas if you want to take pictures of stars, especially wide open. Even a lot of modern lenses are not very good in this special category. But as an example the Sigma 1.4/50 is great for general use, but not on stars. The Sigma 1.4/40 gives you nearly perfect stars at the edge of the frame…

For me you are a lucky man: If you don‘t have these strong requirements for your lenses, you can freely decide what to choose, using completely different characteristics like size and weight as main criteria. Unfortunately I can not go the same way.
 
Good discussion. It's great to hear different perspectives. Part of my "luck" is a lifelong nerve affliction that mandates smaller rigs. So maybe you are the lucky man, not to have that constraint!

I definitely do care about lens characteristics, which is why I own some of the best Pentax glass, a few interesting pieces from Vivitar (was just out shooting with a macro lens), and a selection of Contax Zeiss. I don't own the 100 F2, but I have the compact 60mm C 1:2 "macro". Because, yes, it's smaller than the true 1:1. I'd prefer this to a fast 50 because it's handy carrying a close focus lens in a similar focal length. I also have a Close Focusing Vivitar 28mm for the same reason. It's much smaller than the optically superior smc PENTAX 1:2 28mm. (Though that is obviously preferred when I have the space in my bag.) For me it's a compromise, since I need to minimise my daily carry.

The other factor is rendering aesthetic which is more important to me than small differences in sharpness. Once a lens is good enough to take sharp and contrasty shots, arguing about 5% on an MTF is moot. Factors like focusing will be more important. The larger perspective is that everything we shoot now is so much sharper than 135 film used to be!

Example: I chose the Sonnar 85mm over the Planar due to the incredible rendering.

I am not into the swirly bokeh aberration trend. But I doubt I have your stringent requirements for coma!

The only lens company I trust with MTF charts is Zeiss. Because they are actual measurements and not theoretical plots like every other company publishes. I just wish they did more than print the open aperture and F5.6 tests. If there was a chart for F2.8 it would be easier to compare the low light performance across lenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top