Updated Thoughts on the Firin

If you missed the first part, you can see more here: www.mattparvin.com/adapted-lenses/firin-20mm

I had some time to kill yesterday so spent a while longer with the Firin kicking around town and thought I'd share a few more of my findings. First, let's talk flare. I noticed it when trying to shoot this door way. I has a pretty narrow angle that affects it, the hood or a blank filter or two may well fix it, but it's there. I might even like it for this image, but maybe not for all. Lens was probably hitting the front element at about a 65 degree angle or so. Next, shooting into the sun, this is no Loxia. It's not terrible, and it's fixable with a Dehaze adjustment brush, but had to be careful playing with sunstars. Too much light and it fell apart. Shots below are an average with the Firin and a Sony 16-35 for comparison (at f/14, Firin was at f/16). More direct testing is needed, but happened to take that shot earlier in the day for a client so thought I'd include for comparison's sake.

Since we're on the topic, let's look at Sunstars. Once again it's not a Loxia, but I personally like it. This is better performance with a bright sun in a clear sky than I've been able to get in the past. At f/16 it's nice enough for me, but I'm not a junky like some of you are. The lens does lose some contrast shooting into the sun, but in general it's within editing tolerances. I can live with it for the price difference, others may not.

Alright, one last thought... Distortion. I thought I saw it in some landscapes so went to the old reliable brick wall. Sure enough, the lens doesn't have significant amounts of distortion, but it is a complex wavy distortion. As there is no lens profile yet, it remains to be seen how well it will correct. If they get the pattern right it's small enough that it should correct with very minimal loss of resolution. I probably wouldn't really hesitate to use it for architecture, but it could limit 1 Point Perspective compositions if you have lines near the edge of the frame. I'll withhold final judgement until there's an Adobe profile.

I'll leave you with a few random shots around Southport. The lens is a fun walk about. With a wide aperture it handled well in dark shops and outside on a nice spring day. None of the above dampened my enthusiasm for the lens, like any its best just to know how it performs and work with it.

First thoughts on the Firin

TL;DR: I hope thy make a 35 and a 50. I'm probably biased, I've always liked Tokina lenses. They aren't the best but they're well made and enjoyable. This 20mm is a winner.

Only had a brief, windy, dark outing with it, but it performed stellar. It's nice to have a fast wide prime that isn't a massive adapted beast from a DSLR body. The Firin is quite compact and easy to work with. Performance seems good (in the dark) straight from wide open. I'll do more testing as I go, but this seems to be a winner, and as part of a 3 or 4 lens set (throw in a 75 or so) and it'd be all you need.

Update: Took the Firin out this afternoon for some more testing. I'm liking it more and more. Lens shows good separation at f/2 and closer distances. Central sharpness is simply stellar (the lizard's head was basically centered, then cropped). It has a pleasant vignette at f/2 that I personally prefer. If the lens didn't do it I'd probably add it in post. Bokeh is fairly smooth, but check out a few of the shots in the trees. I don't consider this too bad a performance for a 20mm. When there aren't points of light I find it pretty calm, other than the "coins" nothing jumped out at me. 

Stopped down at longer distances the lens also sings. Same as last night, I find it hits infinity a bit before the hard stop. Stopped down it seems you can use the hard stop without much penalty though. Edge to edge performance works well for me. All of the below are edited, I'm not comparing lenses so I want to see how they'll do creating a final image. Disclaimer: I'm not saying this are the finest photos ever, it's what I could pull off on a lunch break.

Lastly, since we're all hopeless addicts, some central and edge crops from f/2 to f/22 for the below scene. Honestly I have to work to find significant differences. I mean they are there, but f/2 at infinity is great pretty far into the corner. I'll do some other testing later to better evaluate the corners, but I don't expect to be disappointed.

Scene

That's all for today. The sun was high, the light was harsh. Didn't get to check flare, but I think that's been covered already and it's a decent but not spectacular performer. Sunstars will be interesting too. The light last night suggests you want f/16, and they still aren't a Loxia, but I'm not as much a sunstar junkie as many, so I don't think it'll bother me. This one's staying in the bag a bit.

80-200 Contax vs. Canon

If you ask about good 80-200's these two will frequently receive honorable mention. I'm told the Leica is even better, but I'm not ready to get into Leica territory. The Nikon f/4.5 square back is also a good lens I shot years ago, but decided against tracking a copy down to include as I've largely moved away from Nikon.

So let's get right too it!

Wait, first a note... When testing I usually put the camera on a tripod, as I've done here (if note I'll mention it). I then manually focus using 11x magnification or whatever it is on camera. I'll focus wide open then stop down without refocusing while I shoot. If a lens exhibits focus shift it'll be penalized accordingly. Sadly I'm not perfect. As the 135mm test below shows, it appears that the Contax is back focused and the Canon is correct or slightly front focused. No, I'm not re-doing it. I have a full time job, shoot part time for hire and have a family. I'm not sure how I even manage to get this done once... But I'm honest so I'll call it like I see it. Okay, that's out of the way, now let's get right too it!

First, a couple across the board observations... The Canon is a thicker lens, the Contax is a longer lens. The differences aren't huge but they're there. Weight between the two is fairly similar and handling of both is good. I didn't bother to take shots of the lenses, like most old tele-zooms they're long and thin. Two other important distinctions I noticed while shooting these lenses, one negative for both. The Canon does not handle flare well. At All. So if you're shooting towards the sun, forget about it. The Contax seems much better, but I haven't stress tested it the way I did (incidentally) the Canon. For the Contax, as the shots below show, it generally trails the Canon in global contrast. Easily enough fixed these days, but it was pretty apparent. So onto the crops.

80mm

3730f-80center.jpg
6d2cd-80midframe.jpg
45042-80corner.jpg

In the centers I see more CA and smearing at f/4 on the Contax. Mind you, neither is bad, but the Canon is better to my eye. The story continues at all apertures. The Canon has a slight lead. I'd actually chalk this up to slightly better micro contrast of the Canon, allowing for better differentiation of the grasses and roof shingles. If they weren't side by side though, I couldn't guess which was which.

In the midframes things change and the Contax pulls ahead. I see cleaner detail at all apertures in the Contax, though I think you could also say the Canon maintains slightly better micro contrast than the Contax. 

In the corners, it looks like the Contax has a hint more vignette than the Canon but I'm picking. The sharpness situation seems to have again flipflopped, with the Contax slightly ahead, a lead it seems to maintain. Again they are very, very close. 

If you shoot 80mm a lot, pick one and be happy. I'm pretty sure that's going to be my conclusion throughout though...

135mm

4217a-135center.jpg
7aab3-135midframe.jpg
721fd-135corner.jpg

In the center the Canon is winning, handily. It has me wondering if I had a focusing error here with the Contax, but I'm not trying to take anything away from the Canon! The Canon showed cleaner detail wide open at 80mm as well, so I think it might just be a sharper f/4. Things get better at 5.6 for the Contax and it's close by f/8 but wide open is significant.

Midframes, okay I'm getting some confirmation from these shots. The Canon is more front focused, the Contax is more back focused. Look at the grasses and tree branches here and the sharpness flipflops. I think sharpness is closer than these crops indicate but I'm not redoing it, so take what you will from this...

Corners look like a push between these two at 135, but we know things are iffy here. Regardless I see better contrast again from the Canon. Neither is poor either. So let' stick with:

If you shoot 135mm, pick one and be happy.

200mm

d0037-200center.jpg
6d9cb-200midframe.jpg
42a1c-200corner.jpg

In the centers, the Canon is the better lens wide open. It's a good deal sharper and it carries more contrast. At f/5.6 the Contax makes strides but still doesn't catch up to the Canon. By f/8 they are pretty close. The Contax doesn't win but it's about the same.

The trend of the other focal lengths continues, the Contax has better mid frame results at all apertures. The Canon catches up at f/8 but never passes the Contax.

Likewise in the corners, the Contax doesn't look much worse than it's center, while the Canon struggles a bit wide open. I don't believe this to be a focus issue either. Both the trees behind as well as the sliver of grass in front look better in the Contax example. To me, this is the biggest performance difference of these shots. 

Conclusion

You can probably guess, just pick one and be happy! The trend is fairly consistent (if we just ignore the 135mm focal length) the Canon is sharper in the center, the Contax is sharper in the midframe and edges. The Canon carries more contrast if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs and don't want to mess with editing or changing your JPEG setting. Otherwise the contrast difference is well within editing tolerances. So it's worth considering how you'll use this lens here. If you're trying to isolate a central subject than the Canon's sharp centers may be important. I do like these lenses at 200mm and close focus, it throws the background into a nice fuzzy blur. But this is also not a lens traditionally used for portraiture etc. And so if you're using it for landscapes or similar, the across the frame performance of the Contax, particularly in the corners is likely of interest. Still, neither shows enough deficiency to say there is a clear winner. So enjoy some comparison images below, then pick one and be happy.

57c2f-bcontax.jpg
27539-bfd.jpg
737f8-ccontax.jpg
25957-cfd.jpg
74a37-dcontax.jpg
1d4f7-dfd.jpg
cfa12-econtax.jpg
a2a3e-efd.jpg