Cooke vs Heliar vs Zeiss

[ScottPhotoCo]

With all of the lens comparison threads happening I thought I'd share a recent test I did using three lenses on my Graflex RB SLR (handheld).

I was comparing three lenses all at f4.5:
1. Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus used for this test)
2. Voigtländer 240mm Heliar
3. Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

This was a completely unscientific test for my own personal reference to see how each lens worked using the Graflex SLR handheld for portraits.

Other pertinent info:
Film: Ilford FP4+
Processing: XTOL 1:1. 10:30 at 68 degrees
Scanning: Epson v750pro with all settings identical for consistency. No sharpening applied.
No post processing.


Set 1: Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus)

Lens Test by Tim Scott, on Flickr

Lens Test by Tim Scott, on Flickr


Set 2: Voigtländer 240mm Heliar

Lens Test by Tim Scott, on Flickr

Lens Test by Tim Scott, on Flickr


Set 3: Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

See below as there is a 4 image max per thread.


General observations

The Cooke and the Heliar seemed to render very similarly. If I am not mistaken they are a similar lens design so this makes sense.
The Zeiss Tessar is uncoated and didn't handle the bright background as well as the Heliar and the Cooke. I believe that all are uncoated so this seems odd.
The focal length of the Cooke (10.5") is perfect for closer portraits.

I love doing 4x5 handheld portraits so any of these lenses will work. HOWEVER, the Cooke will not fit in the camera when closed. Both the Zeiss and the Voigtländer will.

I hope that this is helpful for you all.


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[ScottPhotoCo]

Set 3: Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm (just missed focus)

Lens Test by Tim Scott, on Flickr

[DrTang]

yeah..the cooke and the heliar are very similar.. the tessar is just too mushy for me.. maybe because the focus is just off a bit though.it does look better on the hair next to her ear

[goamules]

The focus on the Tessar is back too far, that's why her eyes look soft, they are way out of focus. Otherwise, it would have been the sharpest of the three.

[Ken Lee]

To compare lenses, it's helpful when we repeatedly photograph a subject that doesn't move or change in any way.

[ScottPhotoCo]

I always find comments on this stuff interesting. Personally, I do "tests" in ways that are helpful for me. Everyone has their processes and mine is less scientific and more visual. I share because I figure that people who visualize stuff like I do might find it helpful. If not, feel free to ignore it. While not "perfect" this test did what I needed it to do for me.

Hugs,


Tim

[thomasfallon]

It was a mistake doing the "test" handheld. The dof is razor thin. Any movement of the camera throws off the focus plane. Hard to make much out of this since the eyes are not consistently in focus.

[ScottPhotoCo]

It was a mistake doing the "test" handheld. The dof is razor thin. Any movement of the camera throws off the focus plane. Hard to make much out of this since the eyes are not consistently in focus.

Actually, it was a mistake posting this thread at all. This is one of the reasons I have stopped coming here very often. People who have to comment one every single thread (you know who I'm talking about) and people who always have to find fault if things weren't done the way THEY would do it. It was free for you to look. If you want something different do it yourself.

Moderators, if you would kindly remove this entire thread I would appreciate it and I will be sure to not post any further content.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tim, I for one find it very helpful. Sorry that some didn't get it.

[richardman]

Please do not remove the thread. It would be nuts to make major decisions based on web sized pics, regardless of the methodology. Nevertheless, the images are useful for whatever the viewers deem them to be.