kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 131
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:03 pm Post subject: 17mm lens: Canon FD or Tamron? Where to find Canon FD MTFs? |
|
|
kathala wrote:
Hi all,
I have been looking with no success - is there anywhere to find MTF charts for Canon FD lenses? The joy that is pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlrindex.htm has a few very early FL ones in brochures, but nothing later.
Being an FD enthusiast and curator of docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA, it would be an ongoing desire.
But right now, specifically, I am looking for a way to decide between Canon's own 17mm f/4 and the also highly regarded Tamron 51B alternative (which is excellently documented here adaptall-2.com/lenses/51B.html)
Any ideas? _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10601 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I have both 51B with filters and 151B without filters. I tend to use the 151B more, due to concern about the "Normal" filter in the optical path degrading the image. As noted above the filters can be very useful for B&W film photography. On digital the filter may squeeze out a tiny bit more DR than a conversion, imho. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3771 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed May 08, 2024 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Sadly I can't really answer your question since I have no experience with the Tamron 17mm lens (well, I used to own one around 1986, but that doesn't count ...).
The adaptall-2.com website is giving some information about a lens I know very well - the Minolta MD 4/17mm. Sadly adaptall-2.com wrongly states that the performance of the Minolta 4/17mm basically is the same from f4 to f22. This clearly is complete nonsense (in fact, its corner resolution / contrast increases dramatically when stopping down from f4 to f8 or f11).
I have tested the following lenses side-by-side on 24 MP FF cameras:
* Canon new FD 4/17mm
* Minolta MD-I 4/17mm
* Minolta MD-III 4/17mm
* Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm
* Zeiss CY 4/18mm
Canon, Minolta and Zeiss perform neraly identical (Minolta with slightly better contrast / colors than Zeiss & Canon, and Zeiss slightly better corners than Minolta & Canon, but it's only 18mm instead of 17mm!). Tokina corners are clearly inferior to the other three manufacturers.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|