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

Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:42 pm    Post subject: Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro Reply with quote
Out of curiosity I compared the Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro at infinity. Of course a macro should primarily perform at macro range, but still it can be nice to bring a macro lens and use it for other purposes as well, landscapes for example. Note: there could be a slight difference in the actual aperture, as the Fotodiox-Pro adapter doesn't show the exact aperture. I used shutter speeds to determine the aperture value.

First, an oversight image from which I took the crops to compare:
oversight by devoscasper, on Flickr

Comparison center crops:
centercropscomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Mamiya EF 50/1.4 shows already really good detail in the center wide open (keep in mind this is 42+ mp sensor). From f/2, the crops are pretty much tack sharp. @f/8 diffraction kicks in (because of the adapter the aperture opening could be in fact a bit smaller than that, maybe around f/9).

The Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro shows very good detail as well, but not as good as the EF 50/1.4. Only at f/8, it suffers less from diffraction it seems.

Then, the extreme corner crops:
cornercropscomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

From f/2.8 on, the Mamiya EF 50/1.4 has already very good corners. They improve @ f/4.
The Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro suffers from fairly high vignetting @ f/3.5. It clears up, when stopped down. Best corner crops IMO are from the macro E 50/3.5 stopped down to f/5.6: corner sharpness is pretty much perfect.

Conclusion: the Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro seems to do well as a landscape lens. It has to be stopped down a little bit to get rid of the vignetting. @f/5.6 is has better corners than the EF 50/1.4, but the center stays ever so slightly behind. If you need corner to corner sharpness, the 50/3.5 used @ f/5.6 is probably the better choice. The Mamiya EF shows very good center sharpness already @ f/2 and you don't have to stop down much to get good corners as well. In low light situations ,or where corner-to-corner sharpness is less important, the better choice. Plus the added benefit of great bokeh.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Conclusion: the Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro seems to do well as a landscape lens. It has to be stopped down a little bit to get rid of the vignetting. @f/5.6 is has better corners than the EF 50/1.4, but the center stays ever so slightly behind. If you need corner to corner sharpness, the 50/3.5 used @ f/5.6 is probably the better choice. The Mamiya EF shows very good center sharpness already @ f/2 and you don't have to stop down much to get good corners as well. In low light situations ,or where corner-to-corner sharpness is less important, the better choice. Plus the added benefit of great bokeh.


Interesting results and both are very good lenses and perfectly useable near infinity. It seems that the f/8 results are affected by camera shake (did you use a tripod ?) since they seem to be inferior to those obtained at f/5.6. Anyway, I don't think that diffraction would start before f/11, even using a 42 MPpix. full-frame body.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
[quote="caspert79"

Conclusion: the Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro seems to do well as a landscape lens. It has to be stopped down a little bit to get rid of the vignetting. @f/5.6 is has better corners than the EF 50/1.4, but the center stays ever so slightly behind. If you need corner to corner sharpness, the 50/3.5 used @ f/5.6 is probably the better choice. The Mamiya EF shows very good center sharpness already @ f/2 and you don't have to stop down much to get good corners as well. In low light situations ,or where corner-to-corner sharpness is less important, the better choice. Plus the added benefit of great bokeh.


Interesting results and both are very good lenses and perfectly useable near infinity. It seems that the f/8 results are affected by camera shake (did you use a tripod ?) since they seem to be inferior to those obtained at f/5.6. Anyway, I don't think that diffraction would start before f/11, even using a 42 MPpix. full-frame body.[/quote]

Could be the case, these were quick-n-dirty handheld shots.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 1.4 seems to be fairly good where c/a's are concerned wide open.
Was the sun behind you?
Interesting results.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

Could be the case, these were quick-n-dirty handheld shots.


Oops ... 43 MP FF testing with handheld shots? I do use ...

1) a very sturdy Carbon tripod (Manfrotto MT 057C3 plus Manfrotto 410 head)
2) electronic shutter
3) 5s self-timer (10s for tele lenses)

It's not much more work, but the results are much more reliable ... Wink

S


PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could you do some tests on mfd of 1.4 and same distance on macro, maybe using a Nex extension ring , please? Thanks


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Could you do some tests on mfd of 1.4 and same distance on macro, maybe using a Nex extension ring , please? Thanks


What's the purpose of this? You want to use it for flowers (center resolution) or for reproductions (flat field = corner resolution)?

Official Nikon numbers show that the center resolution of the Nikkor-K 1.4/50mm around 1:5 (if I remember correctly) was better than the center resolution of the corresponding Micro-Nikkor-K 3.5/55mm. Corner resolution was better with the Micro-Nikkor, of course.

Might be similar with the Mamyia lenses mentioned, however it would be difficult to show using a common 24MP FF sensor (center resolution of the lens outresolves the sensor).

S


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Could you do some tests on mfd of 1.4 and same distance on macro, maybe using a Nex extension ring , please? Thanks


What's the purpose of this? You want to use it for flowers (center resolution) or for reproductions (flat field = corner resolution)?

Official Nikon numbers show that the center resolution of the Nikkor-K 1.4/50mm around 1:5 (if I remember correctly) was better than the center resolution of the corresponding Micro-Nikkor-K 3.5/55mm. Corner resolution was better with the Micro-Nikkor, of course.

Might be similar with the Mamyia lenses mentioned, however it would be difficult to show using a common 24MP FF sensor (center resolution of the lens outresolves the sensor).

S


Exactly, that's the purpose I'm interested center and corners , the very few shots I've taken on mfd with the 1.4 shows high center resolution closing a little bit (mushrooms and flowers) and I am wondering how do they compare on corners .


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Could you do some tests on mfd of 1.4 and same distance on macro, maybe using a Nex extension ring , please? Thanks


What's the purpose of this? You want to use it for flowers (center resolution) or for reproductions (flat field = corner resolution)?

Official Nikon numbers show that the center resolution of the Nikkor-K 1.4/50mm around 1:5 (if I remember correctly) was better than the center resolution of the corresponding Micro-Nikkor-K 3.5/55mm. Corner resolution was better with the Micro-Nikkor, of course.

Might be similar with the Mamyia lenses mentioned, however it would be difficult to show using a common 24MP FF sensor (center resolution of the lens outresolves the sensor).

S


Exactly, that's the purpose I'm interested center and corners , the very few shots I've taken on mfd with the 1.4 shows high center resolution closing a little bit (mushrooms and flowers) and I am wondering how do they compare on corners .


I usually don't do corner tests at mfd, but if I do them, I do it by focusing in the corner. So I idependently test the corners from the center and don't test for flat focusing field. I don't have the tools to do this in a reliable manner.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did a new test, this time with timer and tripod:
comparisonV2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Conclusion: center resolution of both lenses very good. At f/3.5 / f/4, corners of the EF 50/1.4 get pretty good; at this setting the 50/3.5 macro still suffers from vignetting. At smaller apertures, both lenses show very good corners, but the macro is slightly better.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
oh wow ... I didn't ask for a repetition of your test since I know that it's quite a lot of work ... it was rather a suggestion fpr your upcoming comparisons! But thanks anyway! Testing shows that both these lenses are very good indeed.

I just have finished a series of preliminary test with 50mm / 55mm macro lenses at infinity (final testing needs better weather).

1) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 is superior to the Canon nFD 3.5/50 and the Konica AR 3.5/55
2) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 seems be slightly inferior to the Minolta MD 3.5/50, the Nikkor AiS 2.8/55, and the Pentax A 2.8/50.
3) The Nikkor Ai 3.5/55, the Vivitar 2.8/55 and the Yashica ML 2.8/55 seem to be about equal to the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50.

S


PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
oh wow ... I didn't ask for a repetition of your test since I know that it's quite a lot of work ... it was rather a suggestion fpr your upcoming comparisons! But thanks anyway! Testing shows that both these lenses are very good indeed.

I just have finished a series of preliminary test with 50mm / 55mm macro lenses at infinity (final testing needs better weather).

1) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 is superior to the Canon nFD 3.5/50 and the Konica AR 3.5/55
2) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 seems be slightly inferior to the Minolta MD 3.5/50, the Nikkor AiS 2.8/55, and the Pentax A 2.8/50.
3) The Nikkor Ai 3.5/55, the Vivitar 2.8/55 and the Yashica ML 2.8/55 seem to be about equal to the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50.

S


Just curious: how did you rate the Yashica ML 55/2.8 wide open? I found it particularly good, it's compact as well and therefore useful as a 'standard lens'. I never had the Pentax A 50/2.8: could it be used as a 'standard 50'?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

Just curious: how did you rate the Yashica ML 55/2.8 wide open? I found it particularly good, it's compact as well and therefore useful as a 'standard lens'. I never had the Pentax A 50/2.8: could it be used as a 'standard 50'?


As I said before, the weather conditions were not really good (haze => low contrast) and not completely stable. Since the differences between these macro lenses are pretty small, for time being I can't really answer your question ...

Whenever I compare a set of lenses, I usually to the test at least twice, often also three times. This was a typical "first run" ... second run will follow.

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