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

Common Zeiss CY vs Minolta MD-III designs
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject: Common Zeiss CY vs Minolta MD-III designs Reply with quote
I have compared a few common Zeiss CY lenses with their Minolta MD-III counterparts, clearly understanding that the corrresponding zeiss designs often are one decade (or even more) older than the MD-III designs.

All crops shown here are 100& crops from the extreme corner, directly out of camera. They were taken using a Sony A7 24MP FF camera, a stable Giotto carbon tripod with Manfrotto 410 head. To avoid shaking, the electronic first curtain was used as well as 2 s timer.

Lets start with the eldest Zeiss design, the Distagon 2.8/25mm, and its MD-III counterpart 2.8/24mm:

Even though the Zeiss design is about 15 years older than the MD-III, it certainly isn't worse. Looking at more test pics, and at other apertures i can say that the Zeiss surpasses the Minolta (contrast and detail resolution) especially at f8 - f11. The difference is, however, better visible using 40-50MP cameras.


Now the two 2.8/28mm designs! Both obviously were "budget" designs - quite affordable in the case of the Distagon 2.8/28mm, and very affordable in the case of the Minolta ... Quite similar performance again, but the Zeiss being better in the f8 - f11 range (less CAs):



Now the famous Zeiss Planar 1.4/50mm: Not much difference at f1.4, but - again - slightly better Zeiss performance at f5.6:



At f=135mm Zeiss begins to shine. As we can suspect from the Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135mm MTF figures, the Zeiss has a very good corner performance even wide open. The Minolta MD-III 2.8/135mm (5 lens computation) simply can't compete, and neither can the famous Minolta MC/MD 2.8/135mm with four lenses (not shown here):

Be aware that, again, the Zeiss design is at least 10 years older than the Minolta!

Finally the classical tele zooms! I will show the results at f=200 or f=210mm, as these are most difficult to correct.

Again, the Minolta 4/70-210mm can't compete with the Zeiss design. The Minolta is as good or slightly better as most contemporary tele zooms (Canon nFD 4/80-200, 4/70-210; Pentax A 4/70-210, Konica 4/80-200 UC, Nikkor 4/70-210 and 4/80-200). It is clearly better than the previous Minolta MC 4.5/80-200, and it was developpe in cooperation with Leitz - yet, the Zeiss is way better. Agreed, the Zeiss is nearly one decade newer than the Minolta, and it was developped by Klsch (who shortly after became the chief lens designer at Leica) ... but look at the difference!

Now discussion may start ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1
Thank you for posting. Very informative. I have a few Minolta but my copies might be bad ones.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great testing, thanks for posting!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What a waste of time, the far corners are by far the LEAST important part of an image.

Useless test unless one is incredibly anal about technical details.

A 1.4/50 is crap in the extreme corners wide open. Duh, we already knew that....


PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great test. But you can put full size with Minolta 28 and distagon 28 at F8 ?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Like 1
... I have a few Minolta but my copies might be bad ones.


Which ones? And what are the problems?
The performance of Minolta MF lenses depends quite a bit on their respective "generation" - older designs frome the mid-1960s generally are visibly weaker performers than their counterparts from the mid-1970s or the early 1980s (but no rule without exceptions!)

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephan, it would be helpful to see the full image - where exactly the crops are coming from, and other areas... unless you plan to publish this in full on your website in which case we'll see it all there? I presume that certain aberrations (colour fringing, SA, coma etc. besides resolution) are consistently better on the Zeiss throughout the frame too, and not just at the edges? I expected the Minolta to be better considering your previous tests but I suppose those buildings have higher contrast/lower frequency details, which are also larger in the frame: http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/450-24mm

========

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
What a waste of time, the far corners are by far the LEAST important part of an image.

Useless test unless one is incredibly anal about technical details.

A 1.4/50 is crap in the extreme corners wide open. Duh, we already knew that....


If one is simply trying to illustrate the differences in technical success between two companies, then this is a sensible way to show it. Without the full images, it can be nothing more and nothing less. This has come from a discussion in another thread. It makes no sense photographically because these Zeiss lenses are not available for Minolta mount and vice versa so this is from a purely technically anal pov (hey, you qualified it yourself, making your own comment redundant), which interestingly, is defined as "a person who pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession and may be an annoyance to others" Rolling Eyes

The (generally) older Zeiss is better under the worst possible condition. It may be useful to some and it is interesting as a matter of fact comparison, while your comment is not! Besides, those with the money won't have an issue affording Zeiss anyway... And you could have written just that for the same message, without having to be so rude instead. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergun wrote:
Great test. But you can put full size with Minolta 28 and distagon 28 at F8 ?


Why would you shoot a landscape at f/8? Wink Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
sergun wrote:
Great test. But you can put full size with Minolta 28 and distagon 28 at F8 ?


Why would you shoot a landscape at f/8? Wink Wink



For the corners !....stupid boy... Thank You Dog


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:09 am    Post subject: Re: Common Zeiss CY vs Minolta MD-III designs Reply with quote

Nice bokeh at the corners! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice test...So, I need to sell all my kit and buy old Zeiss technology? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
Nice test...So, I need to sell all my kit and buy old Zeiss technology? Rolling Eyes


Why?? I would say not at all Wink!! The Zeiss CY lenses were quite a bit more expensive than their Minolta MD counterparts, and the difference between a Distagon 2.8/25mm, 2.8/28mm or Planar 1.4/50mm and the corresponding Minolta MD lenses is quite small.

The Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm obviously is a design from around 1990, basically ten years after the MD 4/70-210mm (1983). And the Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm APO (1988) is as good as (and much faster than) the CY 4/80-200mm. The Sonnar CY 2.8/135mm however was quite a surprise - i have tested two samples, both were equally good (und much better than the different Minolta MC/MD 2.8/135mm designs). That's a fact.

And there's a small problem with the Zeiss CY lenses - they ususally are quite a bit heavier than their MD-III counterparts Wink

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