| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3197
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 1:38 pm Post subject: Standard lens for landscape: a comparison |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
Because I was still doubting what lens to take next summer for hikes / landscape photography, I did a little comparison.
Note: handheld shots. The Minolta AF 50/2.8 macro is connected through an adapted without aperture reading, which probably lead to some inaccuracies, especially at f/11. Aperture was probably around f/16 in reality with this lens, because diffraction kicked in. Upper images are center of the frame, lower pictures are far corner. Camera used: A7RII Sony.
First the two fastest lenses wide open:
 Comparison1417 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Quite soft image and very low contrast of Nokton wide open, boat loads of purple fringing. Pentax shows a fair bit of detail in the center and some fringing.
Then f/2:
 Comparisonf2 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Voigtlander still shows purple fringing, but center image of Pentax looks really good with lots of detail and contrast.
Corners of the Minolta MD 50/2 seem best to me.
F/2.8:
 Comparisonf28 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Center performance of all lenses are quite equal. Both Minolta's have the best corners (probably the Macro has the edge, but by a very small margin).
f/4:
 Comparisonf4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Center image of Nokton best of the 4 IMO, Minolta's still the best corners by small margin.
f/5.6:
 Comparisonf56 by devoscasper, on Flickr
All images look very good in the center. I think the 50/2 MD has the best corners.
f/8:
 Comparisonf8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
All images look good. I think the Pentax has the weakest corners, but only by a small margin.
f/11:
 Comparisonf11 by devoscasper, on Flickr
I think the Nokton has the best corners at this setting or maybe equal to the Minolta MD. The macro Minolta seems to perform somewhat weaker; probably aperture was closer to f/16 as explained above.
Conclusion:
Minolta MD 50/2 wins for me as a landscape/ hiking lens because of:
- small size/ low weight
- best corner performance at most apertures
The Voigtlander and Minolta AF 50/2.8 macro are much heavier than the Minolta MD. If one of them would show to be significantly better, I would consider bringing it. But this is not the case. I like the Pentax also a lot; the image is very good @f/2, despite the weaker corners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OPAL
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: Standard lens for landscape: a comparison |
|
|
OPAL wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
Because I was still doubting what lens to take next summer for hikes / landscape photography, I did a little comparison.
Note: handheld shots. The Minolta AF 50/2.8 macro is connected through an adapted without aperture reading, which probably lead to some inaccuracies, especially at f/11. Aperture was probably around f/16 in reality with this lens, because diffraction kicked in. Upper images are center of the frame, lower pictures are far corner. Camera used: A7RII Sony.
First the two fastest lenses wide open:
Comparison1417 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Quite soft image and very low contrast of Nokton wide open, boat loads of purple fringing. Pentax shows a fair bit of detail in the center and some fringing.
You have a nice hobby!
Then f/2:
Comparisonf2 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Voigtlander still shows purple fringing, but center image of Pentax looks really good with lots of detail and contrast.
Corners of the Minolta MD 50/2 seem best to me.
F/2.8:
Comparisonf28 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Center performance of all lenses are quite equal. Both Minolta's have the best corners (probably the Macro has the edge, but by a very small margin).
f/4:
Comparisonf4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Center image of Nokton best of the 4 IMO, Minolta's still the best corners by small margin.
f/5.6:
Comparisonf56 by devoscasper, on Flickr
All images look very good in the center. I think the 50/2 MD has the best corners.
f/8:
Comparisonf8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
All images look good. I think the Pentax has the weakest corners, but only by a small margin.
f/11:
Comparisonf11 by devoscasper, on Flickr
I think the Nokton has the best corners at this setting or maybe equal to the Minolta MD. The macro Minolta seems to perform somewhat weaker; probably aperture was closer to f/16 as explained above.
Conclusion:
Minolta MD 50/2 wins for me as a landscape/ hiking lens because of:
- small size/ low weight
- best corner performance at most apertures
The Voigtlander and Minolta AF 50/2.8 macro are much heavier than the Minolta MD. If one of them would show to be significantly better, I would consider bringing it. But this is not the case. I like the Pentax also a lot; the image is very good @f/2, despite the weaker corners. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 880
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Quite interesting. I am not surprised by the good performance of the Minolta MD 2/50. If you come to test a good copy of the MD 1,7/50 you could also be surprised.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1189
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
If you are going to quote like that, repeating the entire string of images is absolutely un-necessary.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3197
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| Quite interesting. I am not surprised by the good performance of the Minolta MD 2/50. If you come to test a good copy of the MD 1,7/50 you could also be surprised. |
Actually just bought a Konica Minolta AF 50/1.4 for a really good price, that should also be pretty excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3999
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| Quite interesting. I am not surprised by the good performance of the Minolta MD 2/50. |
Me neither. While its contrast at f2 is a bit low, it has a nice rendering (not unlike the Nikkor 2/50mm). Stopped down it has less CAs than the faster f1.4 and f1.2 Rokkors, and it has nearly no distortion (0.1% compared to >2% with many f1.4 normal lenses).
I guess you are talking about the MD-III, are you? The MD-I 2/50mm has a different optical computation and doesn't really convince me (same for the MC-X 2/50mm).
| lumens pixel wrote: |
If you come to test a good copy of the MD 1,7/50 you could also be surprised. |
There are different computations of the MD 1.7/50mm. Sample variation shouldn't be an issue; I have tested a series of ten MD-III 1.7/50mm, and there were no visible differences (24 MP FF).
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3197
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Minolta MD 50/2 from this test has 49mm filter, I guess that's a late computation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 880
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| Quite interesting. I am not surprised by the good performance of the Minolta MD 2/50. |
Me neither. While its contrast at f2 is a bit low, it has a nice rendering (not unlike the Nikkor 2/50mm). Stopped down it has less CAs than the faster f1.4 and f1.2 Rokkors, and it has nearly no distortion (0.1% compared to >2% with many f1.4 normal lenses).
I guess you are talking about the MD-III, are you? The MD-I 2/50mm has a different optical computation and doesn't really convince me (same for the MC-X 2/50mm).
| lumens pixel wrote: |
If you come to test a good copy of the MD 1,7/50 you could also be surprised. |
There are different computations of the MD 1.7/50mm. Sample variation shouldn't be an issue; I have tested a series of ten MD-III 1.7/50mm, and there were no visible differences (24 MP FF).
S |
The 1,4 50 is excellent and the 1,7 is maybe half a stop behind sharpnesswise. Evenness of the frame is better on the 1,7 and bokeh is nice in both cases.
The mdiii 2,0/50 is maybe closer to the 1,4 in terms of sharpness wide open but is busier bokehwise and colours are somewhat duller than 1,7 and 1,4. Steve's remarks about lack of distortion and CA are true.
All these lenses are quite interesting with different strengths at a very high level. For hiking I tend to grasp the lighter and cheaper.
My copy of the 1,7 is a mdii with 49mm filter. Do not know if it is the last computation.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
