Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A little comparision between some cheap ~50mm lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:40 pm    Post subject: A little comparision between some cheap ~50mm lenses Reply with quote

Here are some shots, all wide open


Minolta MD Rokkor F1.4 50mm with 55 filter screw mount


Minolta MD Rokkor F1.4 50mm with 49 filter screw mount


Minolta MD F2 50mm
Slightly warmer colors and better acutance and than the F1.4


Tarcus TV-Lens 50mm F1.3 CAs and vignetting (it's a C-Mount lens) wide open. The performance improves a lot when stopped down to F2 or above but never stays the worst lens in this test


Industar-61 F2.8 52mm
Has a flaring/glowing problem (maybe partially due a very slight coating damage from a single water drop)


Industar-26m Red P F2.8 50mm
Lower flaring problem, better contrast (better coatings) but not as sharp as Industar-61 from above


Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar T F2.8 50mm
Sharp, colors are slightly colder, I don't like the bokeh for color photos.


Auto-Revuenon F1.7 55mm (made by Chinon)
Can't see anything special.


Helios 44-2 F2 58mm Sharp, cheap, special bokeh, no major flawas, everyone here should have one.


Zenitar M2s F2 50mm Slightly better contrast, flaring, sharpness and colors than Helios 44-2...

All lenses


I got all lenses for 5-40
Conclusion:
MD 50/2 is clearly the best for my taste.
Now I'm going to sell every lens except one of the Minolta F1.4 , Minolta 50/2 and the the Helios 44-2
The MD 50/2 for IQ, the MD 50/1.4 for speed and Helios 44-2 for swirly bokeh!


Last edited by ForenSeil on Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:58 pm; edited 16 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice test, the first Minoltas do very well indeed for an f1.4 lens wide open Smile Great to the see the classic Helios still performing well too!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To my eyes the first Minolta 1.4 looks better than the second.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FluffPuppy wrote:
To my eyes the first Minolta 1.4 looks better than the second.

Good eyes Smile I didn't see it on my 13" monitor before you said that Smile
I will check tomorrow if it's my fault (camera shaking, fingerprint on the lens, focus etc.) or a real reproducable difference between the lenses


Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:03 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FluffPuppy wrote:
To my eyes the first Minolta 1.4 looks better than the second.


I agree!

Look @ the name on the bottle of Remy Martin on the left. However it may just be a variation in focus.

I have the second, 49mm filter version.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My preference goes to #3, Minolta MD F2 50mm Pancake .


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

candles flicker, so I would not use them in such a test.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i bet you will leave the 55mm threaded minolta


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice comparative test .

I would prefer them to have been used at the same aperture @f2.8 so that the comparison can be easier.
My preference goes to the Industar-61 F2.8 52mm .

Nice bokeh and potentially higher contrast and hence sharper with an intact coating !!!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
My preference goes to #3, Minolta MD F2 50mm Pancake .


+1

This lens is (used to be?) dirt cheap. I got mine for $5 or something like that.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's strange...
after looking at all these bottles comparative tests, I can't see any particurlarly sharp... hips... Laughing

More seriously, Tessar for me. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FluffPuppy wrote:
candles flicker, so I would not use them in such a test.

They are very good to make CAs (look at pic #4) visible and they show some flaring/contrast issues

Here's the promised second test of the Minolta MD 50mm F1.4


Minolta 55mm version


Minolta 49mm version

This time focused correctly with 14x digital loupe of the NEX, used 1/100s, 2s self-timer on a tripod and M-mode.
The issue with the Remy Martin stays visible so I think this is product quality spreading or the 55mm version has very slightly improved IQ
Both lenses are in good condition



Last edited by ForenSeil on Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:00 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForenSeil wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
candles flicker, so I would not use them in such a test.

They are very good to make CAs (look at pic #4) visible and they show some flaring/contrast issues (see Industar 61 with damaged coating vs Industar 26m with intact coating or Helios 44-2 vs newer replacement Zenitar M2s)


But you should use constant light sources, not variable ones, to accomplish this.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
My preference goes to #3, Minolta MD F2 50mm Pancake .


Yep I'd agree with that on my monitor.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful setting and test. I stay undecided and enjoy observing the differences in characters.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Beautiful setting and test. I stay undecided and enjoy observing the differences in characters.


The 55mm version seems clearly superior to me.