Minolta 17mm f4 - anything substatially better ?

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

My Tokina is good on NEX5 and A6000.

wuxiekeji · Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Posts: 213

Distagon 4/18 on 6D, quite sharp even in the corners but also not a cheap lens. In general, most retrofocus wide angle optics wasn't very good until recently.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I still think my problem has to do with my cameras' sensors. None of the cameras you mentioned are a NEX 7 or a APS-C Canon, so I still have my suspicions.

But just to refresh things for myself, I took the NEX out again with both the (Tokina) Vivitar 17 and the Tamron 17 and shot identical subjects, all at f/8. I didn't bother with my EOS SX because the Vivitar is in Canon FD mount, so I wouldn't have been able to use it on that body.

One of the frustrating things about this is the images appear to be quite sharp -- at least where I'm focusing -- looking at them on my NEX's display. Earlier a member here -- sorry I've forgotten who -- showed me how to adjust in-camera sharpness, contrast, and saturation. He explained that doing so would have the raw images coming from the camera more closely resemble those I see on the display. So I tried bumping the sharpening up to max, which is +3, and contrast up to +2, and was pleased to find that the "improved" images did not take on any obvious artifiacts the way my Canon does if you bump up its internal sharpening routines. Although looking at the images more closely, it appears that this increase in sharpness may have increased the noise level somewhat. I'll have to do some experimenting there to know for sure.

So I've got some images to show now, which have been "improved" by the internal adjustments. All I did to them was adjust contrast as was necessary. I didn't add any sharpening. And now I'm wonndering if I'm just expecting too much out of these lenses. I mean, if I don't blow them up too much, they look fine. But if I zoom into 100%, softness and muddy detail appears, and the corners are blurry. And this is an APS-C camera -- with blurry corners?

I uploaded the full-size images, so if you click on them in your browser, you should be able to view them full size. When you do, cursor over to the corners and you'll see what I'm so frustrated about. One other thing I found to be true, especially with the Tamron, was I could not use the hyperfocal distance scales with any sort of accuracy. If I did so, most of the images were out of focus.

First up are three images I took with the NEX 7 and the Vivitar 17mm f/3..5, s/n 37xxxx. All images taken at f/8 and ISO 100.

The point of focus in this image was the skimmer opening (rectangular hole) in the pool, basically dead center in the image. When reviewing the image on the camera's display, the texture of the stonework surrounding the skimmer opening was clear, but here it looks soft and indistinct.

The point of focus here was the brighter green plant in the left foreground. I chose some of the broader leaves toward the front of the plant.

And the point of focus here was the top of the slanted board in the center of the image. The grain in the slanted board was plainly obvious in my camera's display, but here it can barely be made out, even at 100%:

Next are the three images taken with the NEX 7 and the Tamron 17mm f/3.5. All images taken at f/8 and ISO 100. The points of focus of the following three images are identical to those in the above three images. The comments I made above apply equally with these images.

So anyway, they look soft, even in the center, and blurry as well. They don't look nearly as nice as the Tokina 17mm images shown here. Yet I know the fault doesn't lie with my lenses because I know from much use with the Vivitar on my Canon SLRs that it is an excellent lens, and since the Tamron is behaving equally to the Vivitar here, I'd say that it is just as good as the Vivitar.

Incidentally, this problem is the reason why I was thinking about perhaps getting a 17-35 zoom, like that Tokina, since it's been designed to work with digital cameras.

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I thought I'd revisit my earlier post above. It occurred to me that I had another lens that should work well on my NEX, and that I also have one that should work well on my EOS, that is close to 17mm. Both cameras came with 18-55mm kit lenses. And they're both quite decent lenses, although I think I'd give a slight edge to the Canon. But since I shot the above images with my NEX, I figured I should use its kit 18-55mm. So I set it to f/8, made sure the camera was still set to ISO 100 and shot the same three images, selecting the same three focal points. It rained hard earlier today, so the fence is dark from the wood being soaked. And the water's somewhat higher in the pool, but that isn't gonna make much difference. But because the fence was so dark, I used PSP's "Levels" function to lighten things up a bit so that its appearance would be somewhat close to the original images.

It was also still pretty heavily overcast, so I didn't have much light to use. The OSS on this lens is pretty weak -- not as useful as it is with the Canon 18-55 -- so I had to reshoot a few times because of slow shutter speeds before I got any keepers.

As with the above images, these are full-size images I uploaded, so if you click on them you can view them at actual life size in your browser.

First the pool. Point of focus was the skimmer opening. There's definitely more detail to be seen there, and the corners, while somewhat soft, are not nearly as bad as they are in the above images:

The potted plants. Center sharpness appears to be much better, and the corner sharpness is also better.

The fence -- I can now make out more detail in that leaning board than I could before. Corners are still not as sharp as I'd like, but better.

Honestly, I'm still not all that impressed with these shots, either. But at least they're better. Again, I'm wondering if I'm just expecting too much from these lenses.

Macca · Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 248 Location: Glasgow, Scotland.

Not so common but worth hunting out, the RE Auto Topcor 20mm f4..

It`s definitely superior to the AF version of the Tokina 17mm atx I had but I`m not sure that was a great copy.

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

Not the most inspiring photo I know, I shot this yesterday with my Tokina 3.5/17 @ f8 on a Canon EOS5D MKII. This is the full frame with no pp or sharpening other than conversion to JPEG.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I finally installed a copy of Photoshop on this machine and, for the first time in a long time, processed some raw images with PS's raw converter. This converter is absolutely the best I've seen, with more controls that actually work. Up til now, I thought all converters were pretty much alike, but after trying it out with a couple of suspect files, I can see now how wrong I was.

And after having PS's converter breathe new life into these moribund files, I knew that I'd have to take another look at the ones I'd shot previously with my Tamron and Vivitar 17s.

Those of you who are familiar with PS's raw converter can skip this paragraph, since it'll be old news to you. But when I saw all the controls available, I decided to give some a try. So I tried a modest amount of sharpening, contrast improvements, and exposure adjustment to the images before translating them into jpg's. Nothing extreme, mind you -- just light touches that brought the images into concurrence with what I'd been seeing on my camera's display.

So here are two batches of images that might not be exactly the same as I posted before, but they were shot during the same session that day.

First the Tamron, shot at f/8, with my NEX set to ISO 100. The sky was dull and overcast so shutter speeds were often slow, but I managed to keep the shake down to a minimal amount.

And then the Vivitar, same settings apply.

I'll admit that the above images don't look all that special at the sizes shown here, but if you click on them you can view them full size in your browser -- and then I think you'll see a substantial difference if you compare these with the first ones I posted. The centers are sharp, for the most part, with good definition, and the corners are, in most cases, at least acceptable, and a few are even good. A far cry from what I was getting with the other converter I was using.

So all this makes me feel a bit better, but I still can't wait until I can afford a decent FF camera, so the 17s will work like 17s.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Thomas, both PSP and PS have a "vibrance" command that achieves much the same effect. It's like a combination of a saturation tweak coupled with a bump-up in contrast. I too find it to be very effective. In fact, I did use a bit of it in PS's converter with a few of the above images.

PSP used to have a "Clarity" command that was similar to this, although it had a tendency to de-saturate. The latest version of PSP has replaced it with a "Fill Light/Clarity" command, which allows the user to control a fill-light-like brightness to the image, as well. This latest version doesn't desaturate the way the old command tended to, and thus it too can punch up an image's appearance in a similar fashion to your Clarity plug-in.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Thomas, Corel's Paint Shop Pro is up to version X8 now (aka v.18 ). I'm still using X6 and I'm quite contented with it. PSP offers most of the capabilities of Photoshop, at a small fraction of the price -- well, when you used to be able to buy a package of Photoshop, that is. Now you "rent" it for ten bucks a month. PSP also has a few commands that PS does not, a couple of which I find very useful. It's also quite a bit easier to use than PS. Recent versions appear to attempt to combine a Lightroom-like interface as well, but I never use this "feature." I don't find it to be very useful for what I do. Oh, and the "vibrancy" command I mentioned above is almost a one-click command. Clicking on it brings up a pop-up, where a single slider adjustment is presented, so it's still an easy process.

PSP is not without its quirks, however. For example, it's supposed to be compatible with PS plug-ins, but so far the ones I've tried don't work with it.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

After reading the comments and seeing the images here, i didn't expect too much from my recently acquired MD 4/17mm. However i was pleasantly surprised. While on 24MP FF cameras the corners are quite soft wide open (f4), they rapidly improve when stopping down. F5.6 is quite usable even for landscapes if one removes the CAs. From f8 top f16 we have very good resolution also in the corners. Distortion is quite low as well*. Overall the lens performs better than the venerable MC 2.8/21mm!

I have added two images at f4 and at f8, respectively. The RAWs were developped with Photoshop (CAs automatically removed) and the resulting images were re-sized from 6000 to 2000px, with moderate sharpening (level 40, radius 0.5px).

*EDIT: Modern Photography test says 0.9% pincushion, and adds: "The absence of distortion makes the pictures produced with this lens outstanding."

Stephan

hemeterfilms · Joined: 04 Jul 2012 Posts: 80 Location: Mexico City

Well that is better than my copy I think. Perhaps I am doing something wrong but I just cannot get a decently sharp image at any aperture.

I will try again this afternoon.......

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Two remarks:

1) most superwides (including the Rokkor 4/17mm) react quite sensitive (ie with lower contrast) if not focused properly. Sometimes the adapters are a 0.1mm too thick, and then you can't really reach "infinity": Even though the details seem quite OK, the contrast is not.

2) try focusing the corners (instead of the center), and then stop down to f8 or f11.

Stephan

blotafton · Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1554 Location: Sweden

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

blotafton · Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1554 Location: Sweden

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Here are the extreme corners from the Minolta MD 4/17mm compared to the Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm (100% crop from JPGs directly out of the Sony A7 [24MP FF]:

And here a few additional remarks:
Corner and border resolution: The Minolta is visibly better at all apertures. Tokina has lots of astigmatism, visibly even at f11; the Minolta is free from (visible) astigmatism. Wide open, the Tokina suffers from coma, the Minolta has no visible coma

Center resolution: both are very good, even wide open.

Contrast: The Minolta and the Tokina are similar

Flare (sun slightly outside the image): Minolta has a small, pronounced spot of flare, the Tokina a much softer and much larger area. Minolta flare is easier to correct in post processing.

Distortion: Minolta has slight pincushion (0.9% according to contemporary Modern Photography test), Tokina even a bit less, at least at the borders. The Tokina has, however, a bit more distortion near the central part of the image - it looks as if the central part would bulge out a bit

Lateral CAs: Both lenses are far from perfect, and the CAs are (violet - yellow) are visible at all apertures. The Tokina CAs are more smeared (due to the generally worse correction of the aberrations); the Minolta CAs are less broad/smeared, but mor intense. Minolta CAs can be corrected easily by PP, and then the image looks very good even in the extreme corners. The Tokina doesn't get good, even at f11:

The Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm certainly is a useful lens, but the Rokkor is distinctively better. And yes, i have tested two samples of the RMC Tokina ... both had similar corner problems!

Stephan

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

This taught me a lesson. I bought the Vivitar/Tokina because I had read that the Minolta was poor and the Tokina great. This goes to prove that everything is relative.

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

When you read that the Minolta was poor and the Tokina was great, was this coming from a single article or multiple ones? That is, where one sings the praises of the Tokina and where another one laments the inferior nature of the Minolta? It it were two separate reviews I could perhaps understand that some might not like the level of CA in the Minolta, for example, but another liked the center sharpness of the Tokina, let's say.

But based on what I'm seeing here, I don't see how it's possible that anyone would find the Tokina better than the Minolta.