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 SX 2.8, Hexanon 3.2, Pentax-M 3.5, CZJ 3.5 135mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:13 pm    Post subject: Mamiya SX 2.8, Hexanon 3.2, Pentax-M 3.5, CZJ 3.5 135mm Reply with quote
I decided to follow up a former comparison I did which can be found here: http://forum.mflenses.com/pentax-m-135mm-f-3-5-compared-with-other-135s-t84316.html
This time, I took out the Takumar and added in the Konica Hexanon 135mm f/3.2. Also I changed the subject, in an attempt to get some more insight in the quality of the lenses.

COMPARISON by devoscasper, on Flickr

@ f/2.8, the Mamiya SX 135/2.8 shows impressive performance. Both center and corner show lots of detail. There's a bit of purple fringing going on, but nothing dramatic.
@ f/3.2, the Hexanon 135/3.2 shows good detail in the center and corners, but the results are not quite as crisp as the Mamiya's @ f/2.8. CA control is good, not perfect. Good performance but not extraordinary.

@f/4, there's some improvement both in the center and corner. A hint of purple fringing is left.
@f/4, the Hexanon's center is equal to the Mamiya, the corners are close, but not quite as crisp when you look carefully. A hint of purple fringing is left, comparable to Mamiya.
@f/3.5, the Pentax-M is clearly not as contrasty as the other lenses. The corners are not sharp. Fringing visible in corner.
@ f/3.5, the Zeiss shows good center performance. The corners are softer than the Mamiya's and Hexanon's, but CA control is very good.

@f/5.6, strangely, the Mamiya's center contrast/ saturation seems to decline a bit. Corners improve slightly. CA's almost non existing.
I find the Hexanon's performance a bit better than the Mamiya's at this setting. Better contrast, saturation. I don't notice much fringing either, just a hint.
The Pentax-M is as good as the Hexanon in the center, corners still not too strong. The CJZ has very good contrast and pretty good corners, but not as sharp as the Hexanon's and Mamiya's. Some more fringing in the corners than wide open?

@f/8, the center contrast and saturation of the Mamiya decline a bit more. Corners are excellent, and detail very good accross the frame.
The Hexanon shows very crips and clean performance accross the frame. No fringing.
The Pentax-M has very good corners now, but the Hexanon and Mamiya still a bit better. The CZJ a bit behind, fringing in the corners seems to get a bit worse.

@f/11, Mamiya's center contrast and saturation still going down. Corners very good.
Hexanon's image best and cleanest IMO accross the frame.
The Pentax-M is very close to the Hexanon. CA control in corners not quite as good as the Hexanon's though.
CJZ very good contrast, saturation and detail in the center. Corners a bit behind the rest, there's some fringing.

Feel free to add comments!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't learn much from these sort of tests really, to me, they are all more than good enough in their technical performance.

In real world use though, mtheHexanon 3.2 is a supern lens, especially at closer distances, it's extremely sharp and contrasty and produces wonderful images. However, imho nothing beats the good old Sonnar 3.5/135 because it's more than adequate in all technical aspects but has this wonderful character that is so smooth yet sharp, the bokeh is the classic Sonnar snoothness and the transition between focus and out of focus is very smooth too, just a hard lens not to love.

I have had two of the Mamiya SX, while they feel well built, they aren't really, the aperture mechanisms are weak - both of mine broke. It's a big, heavy lens too, so never endeared itself to me.

The Pentax-M is a very good lens too, always sharp enough, it's strongest point is in the 3d quality of it's rendering - there is a real 'pop' to how it renders 3D objects, I suspect due to the SMC coating more than anything else.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
True, it doesn't say to much about real life performance under different circumstances. It's also limited and doesn't show all strengths and weaknesses of a lens. I agree that the Pentax-M has a special quality to it that doesn't show in the test. And the Sonnar has great qualities like you say, that other lenses lack.

But I usually learn a thing or two by doing these test, such as:
- Better not use the Mamiya too much at small apertures, but it's a strong performer wide open / bokeh shots.
- For cleanest landscape images, I'd probably choose the Hexanon
- I would take the lightweight Pentax with me on hikes, but would adequately stop down for landscapes.
Etc...


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I appreciate these tests. Obviously, they do not say everything about a lens, but the aspects that emerge are objective and can always be supplemented by other 'field' evidence, but to me they would already allow some candidates to be excluded from further study, at least for certain specific jobs.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:
I appreciate these tests. Obviously, they do not say everything about a lens, but the aspects that emerge are objective and can always be supplemented by other 'field' evidence, but to me they would already allow some candidates to be excluded from further study, at least for certain specific jobs.


I'll agree with this up to a certain point.
I think design intent should be considered as well- especially for the 135mm focal length, usually referred to as a "portrait" lens.
I find it helps a bit to try to understand what the lens maker was trying to do in making the lens.
Perhaps corner performance was a bit low down on the list of attainable goals for some makers of film era 135's.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
True, it doesn't say to much about real life performance under different circumstances. It's also limited and doesn't show all strengths and weaknesses of a lens. I agree that the Pentax-M has a special quality to it that doesn't show in the test. And the Sonnar has great qualities like you say, that other lenses lack.

But I usually learn a thing or two by doing these test, such as:
- Better not use the Mamiya too much at small apertures, but it's a strong performer wide open / bokeh shots.
- For cleanest landscape images, I'd probably choose the Hexanon
- I would take the lightweight Pentax with me on hikes, but would adequately stop down for landscapes.
Etc...


There's nothing wrong with your tests, it's just my inability to discern the small nuances of difference when the four lenses are as closely matched as this. They are all fine performers to my eyes, which is due to my lack of discernment rather than sny flaw in the test..


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I appreciate these tests. Obviously, they do not say everything about a lens, but the aspects that emerge are objective and can always be supplemented by other 'field' evidence, but to me they would already allow some candidates to be excluded from further study, at least for certain specific jobs.


I'll agree with this up to a certain point.
I think design intent should be considered as well- especially for the 135mm focal length, usually referred to as a "portrait" lens.
I find it helps a bit to try to understand what the lens maker was trying to do in making the lens.
Perhaps corner performance was a bit low down on the list of attainable goals for some makers of film era 135's.

-D.S.


I have to disagree, since a medium telephoto lens can be a killing tool for still life, architectural and art details, interiors details where you want to keep a slightly flattened perspective, urban or nature landscape, and so on. Any photographer is a world in itself, so it’s hard to predict what kind of picture will be taken by a lens just from FL. But even if we only consider the use as portrait lens, what about when you portray two people and their faces are close to the edges? Or a vertical close crop where the eyes are on the upper edge of the picture, and you have the peak of sharpness on the noose, instead? I ideally and generally like better a lens where the sharpness is even on the picture, but of course we all have to accept shortcomings in the real life, so your point of view is totally legitimate too, of course 😊


PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 135mm was the poor man's portrait lens. So the center image is important and the corners irrelevant. Want good corners get a 100mm macro instead.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I appreciate these tests. Obviously, they do not say everything about a lens, but the aspects that emerge are objective and can always be supplemented by other 'field' evidence, but to me they would already allow some candidates to be excluded from further study, at least for certain specific jobs.


I'll agree with this up to a certain point.
I think design intent should be considered as well- especially for the 135mm focal length, usually referred to as a "portrait" lens.
I find it helps a bit to try to understand what the lens maker was trying to do in making the lens.
Perhaps corner performance was a bit low down on the list of attainable goals for some makers of film era 135's.

-D.S.


I have to disagree, since a medium telephoto lens can be a killing tool for still life, architectural and art details, interiors details where you want to keep a slightly flattened perspective, urban or nature landscape, and so on. Any photographer is a world in itself, so it’s hard to predict what kind of picture will be taken by a lens just from FL. But even if we only consider the use as portrait lens, what about when you portray two people and their faces are close to the edges? Or a vertical close crop where the eyes are on the upper edge of the picture, and you have the peak of sharpness on the noose, instead? I ideally and generally like better a lens where the sharpness is even on the picture, but of course we all have to accept shortcomings in the real life, so your point of view is totally legitimate too, of course 😊


I think there maybe a bit of language confusion here, which is not surprising, considering my somewhat limited abilities.

I actually have two 135's here from the same maker and time period- both Nikkor Q. The 3.5 version is a far better wild life lens than the 2.8.
Usable focus distances and ranges differ a lot between the two lenses- which leads me back to the original design intent idea.
Naturally, the 2.8 mutes back-grounds far better than the 3.5.
I still have not researched this as I should, and have quite a bit of reading to do yet.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
The 135mm was the poor man's portrait lens. So the center image is important and the corners irrelevant. Want good corners get a 100mm macro instead.


Corners may be irrelevant in portrait photography, depending of where your subject is within the frame, but 135mm lenses were also used for other purposes. I'm pretty sure Mamiya and Konica had corner performance on their mind while developing the tested lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
According to your test Rollei Rolleinar-MC 2.8/135mm (Voigtländer Color-Dynarex 2.8/135mm) should be one of the most underrated 135mm lenses. Did anyone compared it with Mamiya version for possible improvement due coating?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They have the same coating, they are the same lens entirely.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
They have the same coating, they are the same lens entirely.

If i remember correctly Mamiya is not MC and glass looks yellow whereas later Rolleinar has purple/orange reflection.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Every Mamiya I have seen was identical to the Rollei and Voigtlander versions, this is true of all the focal lengths I have seen, not just the 135mm.

The Mamiyas not MC? Lol, of course they are MC, by the time they were introduced, everything was MC.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
The 135mm was the poor man's portrait lens. So the center image is important and the corners irrelevant. Want good corners get a 100mm macro instead.


Corners may be irrelevant in portrait photography, depending of where your subject is within the frame, but 135mm lenses were also used for other purposes. I'm pretty sure Mamiya and Konica had corner performance on their mind while developing the tested lenses.


Pentax certainly didn't. Compactness and portability were important for the M-series They were competing with Olympus. The Pentax weighs half the Mamiya. Mamiya used different suppliers for their 35mm SLR lenses. This one they developed themselves, probably by the people developing the MF line up.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

The Mamiyas not MC? Lol, of course they are MC, by the time they were introduced, everything was MC.


Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm was introduced in 1974.

Canon lenses FD 3.5/135mm and FD 2.5/135mm both were single coated even in 1977.
(Source: Günter Richter, Canon F-1, Heering Verlag 1977, page 192/193)

Not everything was multi coated (MC) in 1974, certainly not in the 135mm range.

S


PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

The Mamiyas not MC? Lol, of course they are MC, by the time they were introduced, everything was MC.


Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm was introduced in 1974.

Canon lenses FD 3.5/135mm and FD 2.5/135mm both were single coated even in 1977.
(Source: Günter Richter, Canon F-1, Heering Verlag 1977, page 192/193)

Not everything was multi coated (MC) in 1974, certainly not in the 135mm range.

S


PMSL, there you go again being pedantic. I meant that everything in the Mamiya SX range was MC, Mamiya made a point of promoting this in advaertising.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

The Mamiyas not MC? Lol, of course they are MC, by the time they were introduced, everything was MC.


Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm was introduced in 1974.

Canon lenses FD 3.5/135mm and FD 2.5/135mm both were single coated even in 1977.
(Source: Günter Richter, Canon F-1, Heering Verlag 1977, page 192/193)

Not everything was multi coated (MC) in 1974, certainly not in the 135mm range.

S


PMSL, there you go again being pedantic. I meant that everything in the Mamiya SX range was MC, Mamiya made a point of promoting this in advaertising.


Judging by the colors of my Mamiya SX lenses' coating, the SX 50 mm f/2, 55 mm f/1.8 and 135 mm f/2.8 seem to be single-coated and the SX 21 mm f/4 multi-coated. The later Rolleinar and Voigtländer clones all loook like being multi-coated (MC). But all that hardly matters since most lens makers (with the possible exception of Asahi Pentax and Fuji Photo Film) then used a rather pragmatic approach to lens coating : multiple layers were only used where it made sense and active coating was combined with passive measures to reduce flare and ghosting (black paint, light traps, etc.). So most "free standing" lens elements still got a combination of single (high refractive glass) and multiple layers of coating while Asahi Pentax and Fuji promoted their SMC (7-layer) and EBC (11-layer) multicoating on every single lens surface, method which did not necessarily yield the best results.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
|I dunno, considering how damn good some of the SMC and EBC coated lenses are in certain regards, I'd say their approach worked very well indeed.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This topic had me looking for the Mamiya lens. Turns out I already bought it last year. LOL. I even filed down the aperture ring but forgot anyway. Must be getting old.

Mamiya/Sekor SX 135mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't learn much from these sort of tests really, to me, they are all more than good enough in their technical performance.


On the other hand, I *would* like to learn out of otherwise quite similar lenses, which pulls ahead in sharpness. And so far I have not yet seen a redundant test of quite similar vintage lenses (sample bias? Very Happy) - there is always atleast two or so which have meaningful drawbacks. Even picking a smaller test portion of the lenses tested here, to suggest those results would look quite similar, whichever you select there's one which sticks out.

Learning which very similar lenses pull ahead in sharpness is also something the market probably isn't pricing according to, rather brand reputation etc.

Don't think I'm repeating anyone's points so far.

I will say, sharpness is always appreciated in context of other reviewed aspects of the lens such as bokeh. Some of the 135mm f2.8s I own can be quite harsh.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have one of those Rolleinar MC. Looks similar to the Mamiya (in construction)

The coating is red/purple. Not the same as my Mamiya Sekor SX 55mm 1.8 that is yellow/blue.


#1


#2


Last edited by blotafton on Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Mamiya/Sekor SX 135/2.8 also has Yellow/Blue, so that is probably a mamiya thing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1