35mm/2.8 Rokkor vs. Nikkor vs. MIR (37)

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

On request of "Oldhand" I've done this comparison of three different SLR lenses:

1. Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35mm 1:2.8 (Version MD II),
2. Nikon Nikkor-S Auto 1:2.8 f=35mm,
3. MIR-1 2.8/37 made by ZOMZ, Russia (M39/Zenit).

The pictures have been taken with my Ricoh GXR-M on Tripod using self-timer.
All shot RAW and converted, resized and cropped in LR 6. No sharpening or other PP manipulation for better direct comparison.

The sequence per lens is as follows:
1. Overview resized (F5.6)
2. 100% crop of right corner at F2.8
3. 100% crop of right corner at F5.6
4. 100% crop of center at F8 (small)

1. Minolta:

2. Nikon:

3. MIR:

Here are the tested lenses:

It may be worth to mention that the Mir lens wasn't able to focus 100% correctly at infinity with the normal (excellent working) M42 adapter and the M39/M42 extension.
Therefore I used the Russian special Zenit M39 extension ring and the Leica LTM adapter instead. Obviously the register distance of the old Zenit is still slightly different to M42.
In my studio test this wasn't any issue and the normal M42 adapter worked perfectly for this lens as well.

This comparison can be seen as supplement to my previos 35mm lens comparison published here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/test-of-different-35mm-lenses-on-aps-c-sensor-t71258,highlight,+35mm++test.html

However, this time it should be noted that the wind was heavily blowing, therefore the shown plants are most probably not qualified for comparison, you should more concentrate on the buildings.
That's the obvious disadvantage of outside testing.

From my point of view the winner of these 3 lenses is clear the Minolta lens as it performs best even wide open in the corners.
The center sharpness betw. the Rokkor and the Nikkor is more or less the same and also acceptable (but slightly behind) with the MIR.
The corners of the MIR are by far the worst. Though the corners will be better if stopped down further, i.e. from F8 it's again better, whereas the others won't improve further.
Finally I can say that I wouldn't recommend the MIR for FF use. Both the Nikkor and the Rokkor are no bad choice for any mirrorless camera, especially for the price they are still available.
I personally would prefer in any case the Rokkor, as also the rather awkward way the Nikkor is operating (wrong direction for me) both for mounting the lens or operating the aperture are nothing I will ever get used to. The Mir is only an old-fashioned pre-set lens (aperture). That's also worth mentioning.

It may be also of interest that I found out that in direct comparison between my Ricoh 12MP/APS-C and my Sony 24MP/FF the details are under certain circumstances rather better visible in the Ricoh pictures (at 100% view on monitor) because of the missing blur (anti-aliasing) filter in the Ricoh. So the bigger sensor doesn't necessarily produce the "better" pictures.

If something appears to be weird or not understandable please don't hesitate to comment on that or contact me directly. My English is sometimes a little bit strange. That's also the reason why I edited this posting several times. Wink

Comments are in any case welcome.

Cheers,

chris_zeel · Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:32 pm Post subject:

Nice comparison.
I own the Nikkor-S 35/2.8 (labelled as Nikkon Kogaku) and discovered some quite unpleasant chromatic aberrations when shooting yesterday.

It is visible around the branches in the middle of the frame, shot at around f/8 of f/11 (I think) on my Canon 6D, unedited:

Interestingly, the fringes are not purple of green but show a red tint.
Some of the areas that are surrounded by the fringes were overexposed.
Here's a 100% crop:

The pity is that after editing the photo, it came out even worse:

Is this acceptable behaviour for a 35mm lens? At this aperture and conditions? (shooting into a sunsetting sky)

I wish a had my RE Topcor 35/2.8 and had taken a comparable shot.
If I only had a good hood for that lens I would have brought it now on my holidays instead of the Nikkor-S.

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia

I recently bought the Minolta and it is indeed a very good lens but with one flaw. Field curvature is very obvious, even on aps-c. If I focus for the center near infinity, the corners are visibly out of focus, both wide open and closed down to f/8. But if I focus for the corners, they get very sharp even wide open, but then the center is slightly less than perfect. Need to keep this in mind when shooting landscapes that need to be sharp corner to corner, it's better to sacrifice a bit of center sharpness in order to get much sharper corners.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Oldhand · Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:53 pm Post subject:

Thank you Thomas for your comparison.
This has been most useful.
Very much appreciated
OH

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

@ Miran,

To complete the picture, here are the crops of the very corners from the Minolta lens at F8 from both sides:

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

@Miran,

Well, all MD versions are actually the newer ones in 5/5 design. So your lens is actually the same. According Artaphot the plain latest MD III version (without Rokkor) seems to be the best. Maybe the coating was best at the end of production, the optical design didn't change any more.

No lens is really tack sharp from edge to edge when fully open. That's clear anyway. However, as you stated that this behaviour of your lens is even visible when stopped down to F8, I've provided the supplementary crops. Actually at F8 I don't think that the sharpness is really visible deviating between the center and the edges. At least not in the final picture. From a purely pixel peeping point of view you are right. Even at F8 the lens is minimal weaker in the corners compared to the center. Stephan from Artaphot mentioned that it will improve further when stopped down to F11. Obviously I am less critical than you or Stephan.

Finally we can certainly agree that for the price of an old Minolta MD lens you can't find any better alternative.
Stephan from Artaphot already proved in his testing examples, that even extremely expensive contemporary lenses wouldn't provide better results, depending also on the camera used. A brand new Zeiss lens performs visibly worse on the A7 for example.

I for sure will keep this lens, which I bought already more than 3 decades ago (already second hand). Wink

P.S.: A very impressive sign of optical quality in terms of resolution of the lens is that the Minolta MD lens was the only lens which produced moire on the studio test examples from my previous test with my Ricoh GXR-M (without blur filter). No other lens managed that. Wink

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia

Yes, I'm well aware that no lens is equally sharp from corner to corner at any aperture, let alone fully open. But what I'm saying is that in my first quick test I found I could focus this lens in such a way that the corners were sharper than the center. That's because of curved plane of focus and many lenses behave the same. Of course at f/8 this is much less obvious. I'll do some more tests and post results.

Btw, I got the lens for 38€ which might not be exactly a bargain but looking at the completed listings on ebay it is still at the lower end of the scale and a price I am happy with. Smile

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia

I did a quick test. I shot 4 frames:

1. wide open, focused for maximum sharpness in center of frame, distance to subject a few kilometers (so essentially infinity focus)
2. wide open, focused for maximum sharpnes in top left corner
3. stopped down to f/8, focused in the center
4. stopped down to f/8, focused on the corner

Full frame, red squares show where the crops are taken from:

Crops:

Conclusion: In the wide open test it's quite obvious it makes a big difference where you focus. Corner is not very sharp when focus is on center detail. But you can get it in sharp focus at the expense of the center becoming softer. This is field curvature. At f/8 this is less obvious but it's still there.

Out of curiosity I repeated the test with the only three other comparable lenses in my arsenal: Flektogons 35mm/2.8 and 2.4 MC and Minolta MD 35-70mm/3.5 Macro Zoom:

The fleks seem to have a little less field curvature but they're overall much inferior lenses. The f/2.8 non MC also has a little warmer colours. The Minolta zoom on the other hand has very flat plane of focus and is very sharp across the frame at all apertures. It is an amazingly amazing lens and its amazingness never ceases to amaze me. Surprised

This was all very unscientific though and tested only at infinity focus in very overcast conditions. All testing done on APS-C sensor.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have the 7/7 Rokkor 35 and I think it's rather better than the later 5/5 version.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

VLR · Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86

Thanks for the shots, tb_a! Although I'm a Minolta fanboy, it seems to me that the Nikkor delivers lower contrast and perhaps a little more spherical aberrations but visibly higher resolution. I'm actually surprised a bit, because the Minolta already is pretty good Very Happy

Concerning the MC/MD question: Yes, the MD is better. I've had the MC-X with 7/6 design and the MD-II with 5/5 to test and immediately sold the MC after having a look at the images. Not that it is a bad lens - the MD is just a tiny bit better in every aspect and additionally it's lighter and more compact.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia