TEST Nine vintage 2.8/35mm lenses on 24 MP FF

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

Recently I got a pretty rare Mamiya Sekor EF 2.8/35mm (SN 100016 - so probably the 16th lens made), and of course I was curious about its performance for landscape photography. The lens is extremely small and lightweight (140 g), and it feels quite cheaply. nevertheless it has a good reputation.

Here's the result of an afternoon's work (AS USUAL CLICK TWICE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION):

We can easily see the differences between earlier retrofocus 2.8/35mm lenses (1950-1965 time frame) and the later (1975-1980) and much better constructions.

A few remarks:

1) The Flektogon (2nd calculation 1953) - along with the Angenieux Retrofocus - is one of the earliest wideangles for 35mm SLRs. Given the fact that is is about ten years older than the typical "1960s" 2.8/35mm coming next, its performance is quite impressing. However, it has a disting yellowish color cast and the strongest CAs of all lenses tested. 195 g.

2) Next comes the Schneider Edixa-Curtagon 2.8/35mm (1958). It certainly is one of the best 35mm retrofocus lenses from the 1950s, and stopped down to f11 it is pretty much on par with the Japanese 2.8/35mm from the mid-1970s. Certainly a much better construction than the Flektogon. It was the first retrofocus lens to correct coma with two positive menisci at the rear end of the lens. This arrangement later was copied by Nikon for their 3.5/28mm retrofocus lens which was an excellent "supoerwide" at its time. 250 g.

3) The Minolta MC-I 2.8/35mm (1966) is much smaller than the Konica AR mentioned below. Its overall performance is quite similar to the all-metal Hexanon, but its contrast is better and the colors are more saturated. Remember that most Minolta SLR lenses were multi-coated right from the beginning (1958); most other OEM manufacturers were following only 10-15 years later! However, it doesn't reach the performance of the Schneider Curtagon. This may have been the reason why Minolta decided to base its forthcoming MC 1.8/35mm on the Schneider Curtagon, as it is explicitly mentioned in technical papers related to the MC 1.8/35mm. 220 g without caps.

4) The Konica AR 2.8/35mm [7/6] with all-black metal focusing grip obviously has not the same optical construction as the later AR 2.8/35mm [7/6] with rubber grip since the two lenses have quite a different performance. I have checked two Konica AR 2.8/35mm [7/6] with all-black metal focusing grip to be sure that its low performanc isn't just an outlier or a defective lens. Interesting fact, which neither mentioned in the buhla.de website (http://buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e35_28.html) nor at konicafiles (http://konicafiles.com/3-hexanon-ar-lenses/-wide-angle-lenses/). 240 g.

5) The Topcor RE 2.8/35mm - also a typical early retrofocus construction - is probbaly the worst of the lenses tested here. Lots of astigmatism or coma (difficult to distinguish from these images) and quite bad CAs. While its lens barrel is well made and focusing is quite smooth, the optical performance is nothing to rave about. Lots of "vintage" character, though ... 235 g.

6) The Konica AR 2.8/35mm [7/6] with rubber focusing grip (around 1975) nominally has the same lens cross section as the earlier metal version, but its performance is much better. 245 g.

7) Mamiya Sekor EF 2.8/35mm - a rare lens from 1984, but its construction probably the same as the earlier Sekor E and Sekor CS 2.8/35mm lenses (around 1980 and 1978, respectively). Much better than the typical Japanese 2.8/35mm from the mid-1960s, and visibly better than the ribber grip [7/6] Hexanon as well. Not as perfect as the Minolta MD-III, though. Extremely lighhtweight at just 140 g!

Cool

Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm (1981). Excellent small vintage 2.8/35mm which is as good as the expensive Zeiss (Sony) FE Sonnar 2.8/35mm. Small and lightweight at 170 g.

9) Yashica ML 2.8/35mm [6L]. Very good 35mm lens from around 1983, slighyl inferior to the Minolta, but otherwise really well built. 225 g.

Sadly I don't have the Nikkors (which were made in at least different optical versions), the Canon nFD (which is said to be an excellent lens as well), the Zeiss CY and the Leica R versions. Actually a Leica R 2.8/35mm with stuck focus is sitting here, waiting to be repaired, and maybe the last [5/5] version of the Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm will arrive next week ... And of course there a few more 35mm lenses up in the attic (Elicar, Carenar, Cosinon, Steinheil, Vivitar, VoigtlÃ¤nder, ...), not to forget the numerous Minolta versions. However, this selection should give a reasonable first impression at least ...

S

kiddo · Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1218

Impressive work Steve, thank you. I've had the zeiss c/y very good lens ,but the 28mm was more suitable so I've let it go . The skoparex might be an interesting to see (dkl), that mamiya ef is doing very good in fact, comparing to so many others . The topcors look like cannot compete with younger fellows, even though ,on paper ,it seems that were supposed to do very good (I've got a sloppy 3,5cm Wich a really like for its character). Maybe a flek 2.4 would be interesting to see also,I've never compared it to c/y zeiss ,but probably pretty close each other .
Of course ,this test is showing corner rendering ,doesn't mean at all ,that central sharpness difference would be so big between em .

RnR · Expire: 2019-08-29

Great work Steve. Many thanks!

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

Superb

blotafton · Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1608 Location: Sweden

Great work as always! Impressive results from the Mamiya. Almost at the Minolta level. It's interesting to see the other contestants as well. Maybe it was difficult to make a really good 35mm back in the day.

I really need to get an adapter now for my Sekor E 35mm.

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530

I guess the topcor beats all of them in fuzzing up the corners, but that's no reason not to get one. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcon-35mm-f-28-re-auto-topcor-t52524.html

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

Here's a small addition - comparing three zooms to the primes shown above. It's interesting to see that these clunky and heavy zooms at f=35mm do not perform better than the best 35mm primes from the 1980s. Of course 35mm clearly is the worst focal length on the Zeiss ZA 16-35mm, and superwide primes were not that good fourty years ago.

S

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Interesting comparison.

Out of curiosity I have compared some of my better 35mm lenses at F2.8 for corner sharpness at infinity on my A7R II (42MP FF).

Outcome: Minolta MD 35/2.8 and 1.8 and CV 35/1.7 had absulutely no chance against the Minolta AF 35/2.0.

Center sharpness excellent on all 4 lenses, nearly indistinguishable.

Would be interesting if the Sony/Zeiss FE 35/2.8 is any better than the Minolta AF 35/2.

Ernst Dinkla · Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 391

Thank you for this elaborate work done. I already had a permanent search for an MD III 35mm 2.8 running on our alternative Craig list here. As I suspected it could be equivalent or better than my Mamiya-Sekor CS 35mm 2.8. CS/E/EF have the same optics as far as I know. It looks like wide open the Minolta beats the Mamiya-Sekor. How they both perform at mid range remains a question.

The reason I bought the M-S CS at ebay.de maybe 5 years ago were these test results:

I have not been disappointed with the lens used on an A7RII. In fact it is the only 35mm prime I have next to a Ricoh pancake 35mm taken from an FF1 compact camera.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

I really did wonder what lens the Nione is Smile

. Thanks for sharing, Yashica ML 35mm is goood.

bp_reid · Joined: 06 Jan 2021 Posts: 57 Location: London, UK

It would have been nice to see the OM 35/2.8 to the mix. I had one for a bit and it seemed very decent to me, one of the better Zuikos I tried.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

sergun · Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 7:36 pm Post subject:

Of the 35/2.8 were:
Minolta md-III 35/2.8 - Very good but my copy is "crooked" on one side (sold out)
Nikkor K 35/2.8 - Very good but my copy is "crooked" on one side (returned to the seller)
Minolta MC W. Rokkor-HG 35 mm f2.8 - weak
RE Auto-Topcor 35 mm f2.8 - weak
Canon nfd 35/2.8 (still on my hands) - the most even of all and, as it seems to me, contrasting too.
Link below to the full-size three files with nfd 35/2. 8 (2.8, 5.6, 9)
https://disk.yandex.ru/d/3oltfTUafFCtZg

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

blotafton · Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1608 Location: Sweden

When it comes to the Edixa Curtagon I was able to find one in good shape and the build quality is amazing and even the focusing is still smooth.
In normal shooting it is easy to see that the edges are not the best. But I have tried using it as a macro and even at 100% pixel peeping the images holds up well on 24mp.

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659

My Schneider angulon 35/2,8 and Minolta MDIII 35/2,8 have excellent centers, not so good borders.
The same with the flektagon 34/2,4, Elmarit R II 35/2,8 and hexanon 35/2,8
The first 35 mm lens I have with sharpness corner to corner is the Sony GM 35/1,4. From f/2,4.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland