Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

200mm lens comparison (Leitz/Minolta/Topcon/Pentax)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject: 200mm lens comparison (Leitz/Minolta/Topcon/Pentax) Reply with quote
In order to get a clearer picture of the quality of my lenses I took the 200mm ones today for direct comparison.
All pictures have been shot with my Ricoh GXR-M at F4 in order to show their weakest performance.
A 100% crop is following each picture.
When stopped down latest at F8 the differences are hardly to see and all CA's are gone. I skipped the posting of those examples.
However, if somebody is interested I can post them as well.
As usual all pictures have been treated the same way; i.e. converted in LR6 with some minor adjustments, but without CA removal.

Leitz Telyt F4 (Visoflex M39):





Minolta MD Tele Rokkor F4 (MD II, second version 1980):





Pentax Takumar F3.5 at F4:





Topcon Topcor UV F4:





As expected the Leitz Telyt is the clear winner as there are barely any CA's visible not even fully open. The Minolta MD isn't bad either and as well usable fully open. The others should rather be used stopped down a little bit.

I've also included my Minolta AF 80-200mm/F2.8 HS APO and this lens is on the same excellent level at 200mm/F4 as the Leitz Telyt. However, it's no MF lens and therefore I skipped the example pictures as well. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: 200mm lens comparison (Leitz/Minolta/Topcon/Pentax) Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
I've also included my Minolta AF 80-200mm/F2.8 HS APO and this lens is on the same excellent level at 200mm/F4 as the Leitz Telyt. However, it's no MF lens and therefore I skipped the example pictures as well. Wink

Please include the Minolta AF zoom pictures, too. It would be interesting to see how the older lenses compare to the relatively newer zoom.

Interesting tests! From the sharpness point of view Telyt is no more the winner, but all lenses are close enough.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 200mm lens comparison (Leitz/Minolta/Topcon/Pentax) Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Please include the Minolta AF zoom pictures, too. It would be interesting to see how the older lenses compare to the relatively newer zoom.
Interesting tests! From the sharpness point of view Telyt is no more the winner, but all lenses are close enough.


Dan, here we go. Same method as before:

Minolta AF 80-200mm/F2.8 HS APO at 200mm/F4:

Crop Only:



Edited: Unable to grant F4 in this example. Most probably the aperture was smaller; i.e. F8 or so....

Last edited by tb_a on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:05 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Surprisingly, the DOF of the zoom lens seems much greater at f/4!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Surprisingly, the DOF of the zoom lens seems much greater at f/4!


Dan, sorry, but I mixed the pictures up this time. Please leave me some time to resolve my problem.
Maybe I have to shoot the Zoom pictures again to be on the safe side.....


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Pentax looks best to me: less lateral CA than the Minolta, greater transmission/less vignetting and greater contrast leading to a greater impression of sharpness but of which there is perhaps less. However, the apparent change in scene lighting may be responsible for the last two points. I think the Leitz image is focused on the foreground as the centre crop including background is not resolved at all.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
dan_ wrote:
Surprisingly, the DOF of the zoom lens seems much greater at f/4!


Dan, sorry, but I mixed the pictures up this time. Please leave me some time to resolve my problem.
Maybe I have to shoot the Zoom pictures again to be on the safe side.....


Dan, I repeated the shots as I was not able to reconstruct them under same conditions as the adapter for Minolta AF onto Leica M doesn't show the aperture; i.e. aperture can only be opened or closed approximately. Therefore I had to look at the time setting only.
That's why I've done the new pictures with my Sony A850 to make sure that F4 is correctly chosen. However, this time the 200mm are really 200mm and not 300mm equivalence as on the Ricoh before. Please also note that the light conditions have changed.

Anyway, to show the lens quality at 200mm/F4 it should be OK.





PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The winner to me is the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor F4 (MD II, second version 1980)...

It's noticeably sharper in the edges than the Leica but its only fault is a little bit of magenta fringing in the middle. You can almost read the license plates on the cars with the minolta but the Leica is just slightly not as clear. and compare the trees on top of the frame.. on the Leica it's just a blur.. on the minolta you can make out all the little branches!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Thomas!
The Minolta AF zoom looks like a very good lens, indeed.

Last edited by dan_ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Thanks, Tomas!
The Minolta AF zoom looks like a very good lens, indeed.


Yeah, for me it's the clear winner now. Wink
And at F2.8 it's almost as good as at F4, though I never would do landscape fully open.
However, it has it's price. Still selling for apprx. 1K Euro....

100% crop at F2.8:



PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
test is incorrect. becouse the man and the woman from the first picture are absent by the next photos. Laugh 1

but seriosly - excelent job! Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergtum wrote:
test is incorrect. becouse the man and the woman from first picture are absent by the next photos.


Damn, caught.

sergtum wrote:
but seriosly - excelent job!


Thank you! Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I compared the small words under SeneCura and the power poles on the left side of each image. To my eyes, all the Japanese lenses were sharper than the Leitz. As to which is the sharpest, it doesn't matter to me because that gets into pixel peeping in order to tell the difference. And I'm not interested in doing that.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I compared the small words under SeneCura and the power poles on the left side of each image. To my eyes, all the Japanese lenses were sharper than the Leitz. As to which is the sharpest, it doesn't matter to me because that gets into pixel peeping in order to tell the difference. And I'm not interested in doing that.


The Leitz lens is the only lens which is almost free of purple fringing when used fully open, though it's by far the oldest lens of this comparison (my copy was made 1959). For me this is more important than the absolute sharpness in pixel peeping mode.
So I see it more or less like you. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please note this shows the old ASAHI Takumar preset lens made 1958-1965. With introduction of ASAHI Super-Takumar the formula got changed from 4/4 to 5/5.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Please note this shows the old ASAHI Takumar preset lens made 1958-1965. With introduction of ASAHI Super-Takumar the formula got changed from 4/4 to 5/5.


Well, I think that's clear anyway as the Takumar is F3.5 and the Super-Takumar is F4.
Only the picture was made at F4 for comparison reasons.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Please note this shows the old ASAHI Takumar preset lens made 1958-1965. With introduction of ASAHI Super-Takumar the formula got changed from 4/4 to 5/5.


Well, I think that's clear anyway as the Takumar is F3.5 and the Super-Takumar is F4.
Only the picture was made at F4 for comparison reasons.


Yes, but to say in another thread the Minolta is better than the "Pentax" (sic) Takumar can be misleading, when in fact the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar is probably better than both.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They all look almost identical to me and perform good. Differences that small are hard to pin on just the lens. It could be your focus slightly off. It could be the construction of the adapter you are using. It could be slight sample variation in old lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Please note this shows the old ASAHI Takumar preset lens made 1958-1965. With introduction of ASAHI Super-Takumar the formula got changed from 4/4 to 5/5.


tb_a wrote:
Well, I think that's clear anyway as the Takumar is F3.5 and the Super-Takumar is F4.
Only the picture was made at F4 for comparison reasons.


visualopsins wrote:
Yes, but to say in another thread the Minolta is better than the "Pentax" (sic) Takumar can be misleading, when in fact the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar is probably better than both.


In the other thread we talked about the 200/3.5 Takumar which is undoubtfully clear.
Even in the Pentax forums it's listed under PENTAX M42 screwmount lenses: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Takumar-200mm-F3.5.html

I don't know the Takumar 200/4, but interestingly it has got less points in the forums review database:
Takumar 200/3.5: 26 reviews and 9.46 average rating and
SMC Takumar 200/4: 37 reviews and 8.91 average rating.

For my taste these old Takumars are too big and too heavy anyway, even the newer 200/4 version. Therefore I prefer the Minolta lens for it's portability hence I'm recommending it.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
They all look almost identical to me and perform good. Differences that small are hard to pin on just the lens. It could be your focus slightly off. It could be the construction of the adapter you are using. It could be slight sample variation in old lenses.


That's clear anyway. I've made all my lens comparisons primarily for myself to find out which lens to use for real photography out of my collection.
But I thought some of the readers here might find them useful as well hence I'm happy to share them with the community here.
I can assure you that neither the adapter nor any misfocus plays any role for the results but sample variation may indeed occur. Unfortunately I only have 1 copy per lens in most of the cases.
However, from my experience this sample variation is no significant factor with brands like Minolta, Pentax and Leitz.

BTW, most of my comparisons I've repeated with my Sony A7R II and it turned out that the ranking is more or less the same on 42MP FF camera; i.e. the best lens on APS-C was also the best lens on FF.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Yes, but to say in another thread the Minolta is better than the "Pentax" (sic) Takumar can be misleading, when in fact the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar is probably better than both.


I have both the Minolta MD-II 4/200mm and the SMC Takumar 4/200mm. On 24MP FF, they have a nearly identical performance. Both lenses are similar in performace to the Ai Nikkor 4/200mm.

The earlier version of the Minolta 4/200mm (sold as MC-X and MD-I) however is clearly better than the lenses mentioned above: Less latera CAs, way better corner performance at f4.

The ED Nikkor AiS 2.8/180mm has even less lateral CAs.

S


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
The earlier version of the Minolta 4/200mm (sold as MC-X and MD-I) however is clearly better than the lenses mentioned above: Less latera CAs, way better corner performance at f4.


AFAIK there are basically two versions and all of them share the same construction formula:

The heavy (520 Gr.) one from MC-X to MD II (first version) and
the light (400-410 Gr.) version from MD II (second version) to MD III.

You think that the older version is the better one? This must be one of the very rare exception in the Minolta line up. Usually the newest versions are the best ones.
However, I haven't seen any comparison yet. Would you be able to provide a comparison picture of both versions? Would be great.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, some people claim this also applies to the 135 f 2.8. The newer compact 5/5 would be lesser than the old 135 mm 2.8 4/4. Maybe Steve can enlighten us on this as well.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
stevemark wrote:
The earlier version of the Minolta 4/200mm (sold as MC-X and MD-I) however is clearly better than the lenses mentioned above: Less latera CAs, way better corner performance at f4.


AFAIK there are basically two versions and all of them share the same construction formula:

The heavy (520 Gr.) one from MC-X to MD II (first version) and
the light (400-410 Gr.) version from MD II (second version) to MD III.

You think that the older version is the better one?

Yes.
I have several samples of the first 520g version, and two samples of the later 400g version, so there's a fair chance the observed behaviour is not because of sample variation.

tb_a wrote:

This must be one of the very rare exception in the Minolta line up. Usually the newest versions are the best ones.
However, I haven't seen any comparison yet. Would you be able to provide a comparison picture of both versions? Would be great.


Indeed it is. The later version is by no means bad; in fact it behaves very similar to most contemporary 4/200mm lenses such as the Nikkor Ai, the Pentax-M, the Konica Hexanon AR, and the Mamiya Sekor E 4/200mm. The first, longer and heavier Minolta version (both MC-X and MD-I) however is clearly better than the others mentioned. Obviously building a tele lens shorter means that you have to bend the glass more. An interesting example of these difficulties can be seen in the Pentax M* 4/300mm: an extremely short and 4/300mm lens which uses three large ED lenses and a extremely high index/low dispersion glass (nD 1.88, and v about 40). It's CA performance isn't better than the "jurassic" Minolta 4.5/300mm from the SR lineup which obviously had no ED glass, and very probably not even LD glass.


Antoine wrote:
Actually, some people claim this also applies to the 135 f 2.8. The newer compact 5/5 would be lesser than the old 135 mm 2.8 4/4. Maybe Steve can enlighten us on this as well.


Yeah, i know. There are minor differences between the [4/4] and the [5/5] Minolta 2.8/135mm lenses, but i would not consider one of them to be superior to the other, at least not in the infinity range where i'm usually testing.

I'm traveling, so i can't provide any tests ... maybe next week. If i forget it, just remind me by PM.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1