LOMO 4 0,12 160/- (+comparison between Lomo 3,7 0,11)

[Soki]

Hey,

has anyone experience with the Lomo 4 0,12? Is it as good as the Lomo 3,7 0,11?

Kind regards,

Simon

[ray_parkhurst]

I have not tested the Lomo 4/0.12, but have tested most other low-mag Lomo objectives, and unfortunately the 3.7/0.11 seems to be unique in its qualities. There are others which are "good", but no others I've found that are "great" like the 3.7. But again I have not tested the 4/0.12, so...

[Lou Jost]

I have had similar experiences as Ray with Lomo objectives. Some are real dogs, but the 3.7x is magnificent.

[Soki]

Hey,

thanks to both of you! I bought both and will show the results within the next days.

Kind regards,
Simon

[Lou Jost]

The nice thing about Lomo objectives is they are cheap, so it can be fun to exoeriment with them. Hope yours turns out well.

[ray_parkhurst]

Hey,

thanks to both of you! I bought both and will show the results within the next days.

Kind regards,
Simon

This is great Simon. Would be nice to have more really good or even great Lomo objectives available.

You may already know this, but one thing to note about the 3.7x, which may also be true with the 4x, is that it's not flat-field. An initial check of the 3.7x actually looks like many other objectives, with only a good central region, but when you re-focus the edges/corners (even on APS-C) they sharpen-up nicely. This means you need to focus stack in order to get an overall sharp result. The 4x may have the same characteristics, so don't judge too quickly if it shows sharpness issues in the edges/corners on a flat subject.

[Soki]

Hey!

Thanks a lot for the Info. I will post a stack and single shots with both objectives. The Lomo 4 already arrived (not yet tested), but I‘m still waiting for the Lomo 3,7.
Hope to get it within the next time.

Kind regards,
Simon

[Soki]

The first image was made by the Lomo 3,7. I used 74 single pictures and an exposure time of 1.3

The second image was made with the Lomo 4. I used 79 single pictures and an exposure time of 1.0


The Lomo 4 is more light sensitive and so I had to reduce the exposure time a bit. The working distance is way shorter, too. The Lomo 4 is longer and heavier.
I used the same settings for both (aside exposure time).
The original jpeg files were stacked via affinity photo. I converted the stacked tiff files in jpegs. Then I compressed and auto sharped them via irfan view.

What do you think about the results?


kind regards,
Simon

[Lou Jost]

They both look good at this magnification, but we would need to see 100% crops of each to judge them properly. And maybe with minimal sharpening rather than automatic sharpening.

[Soki]

They both look good at this magnification, but we would need to see 100% crops of each to judge them properly. And maybe with minimal sharpening rather than automatic sharpening.

You are totally right. I cropped the center and the bottom left corner. Compressed via irfan, no sharpening.

1 Lomo 3,7 center
2 Lomo 4 center

3 Lomo 3,7 corner
4 Lomo 4 corner

[Lou Jost]

Thaniks a lot for the crops. These both still look good! Maybe the 4x has a bit more contrast and sharpness in the corner?

[Soki]

You‘re welcome

that is my impression, too. But for a final conclusion I have to test it on more subjects.
Nevertheless the Lomo 4 0,12 seems to be a very good objective for macrophotography.
I‘m glad I bought it (Lomo 4 0,12-> 32,99$ vs Lomo 3,7 0,11->79,99$