View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2021 10:09 pm Post subject: TEST Nine vintage 2.8/35mm lenses on 24 MP FF |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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!
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, Voigtländer, ...), not to forget the numerous Minolta versions. However, this selection should give a reasonable first impression at least ...
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Sun May 23, 2021 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kiddo
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1218
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2021 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
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 . |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RnR
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 283 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
RnR wrote:
Great work Steve. Many thanks! _________________ Currently shooting with Fuji X-E2s + Metabones Speedbooster + m42 and CY glass 💕
Cheers, Hasse |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
lumens pixel
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 854
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Superb _________________ 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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
blotafton
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1608 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 8:42 am Post subject: Re: TEST Nione vintage 2.8/35mm lenses on 24 MP FF |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
D1N0
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
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 _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
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), |
Earlier on - usually just when I received them - I have tested a few slower German 35mm retrofocus lenses from the 1950s / 1960s; all of them were pretty bad in terms of edge and corner resolution (not talking about rendition here). Usually I got them for free because people were throwing away their old stuff, and I wouldn't use them because of slow speed and low performance. The Zeiss Oberkochen Distagon 4/35mm might well be an exception, but I've never been abl to test one.
kiddo wrote: |
that mamiya ef is doing very good in fact, comparing to so many others . |
Two remarks - 1) the Mamiya Sekor E and EF lens is very cheaply built (and lightweight - if you're looking for that). And 2) other modern 2.8/35mm from the 1980s probably would be look as good as the Mamiya or even the Minolta MD-III (especially the Canon nFD 2.8/35mm, the last Leica R, the Zeiss CY and the Nikkor AiS 2.8/35mm). However, these lenses are pretty scarce here in Switzerland - people usually were buying the 2.8/28mm back then, or the faster f2 and f1.4 35mm lenses.
kiddo wrote: |
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). |
Character is another thing . All these "bad" lenses in my test will have the typical "1960s" character, especially when using a film such as Kodak Tri X coupled with low contrast development of the film. There are plenty of examples showing these properties in the net.
kiddo wrote: |
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 . |
Those 2.4/35mm Flektogons are quite sought after here, they never go cheap, and I usually don't pay too much for lenses I'll just test and probably never really use. In other words - I prefer to buy lenses no one else really wants
kiddo wrote: |
Of course ,this test is showing corner rendering ,doesn't mean at all ,that central sharpness difference would be so big between em . |
. Central sharpness (infinitiy, wide open) on all lenses shown above is perfect. Sometimes a slightly lower contrast than with a modern f2.8 zoom, but that's visible only in direct comparison and not relevant in real life photography.
.
Those beautiful images by Woodrim were taken with an APS-C camera (NEX-5N). Which means that really the sweet spot of the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm is shown .
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
tb_a
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Ernst Dinkla
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 391
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
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:![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20215/10001_Screenshot_20170225_155124_1.png)
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. _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
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. |
I'd guess that the MC-X [5/5] or the MD-I / MD-II would be as good as the MD-III, but I have to check that.
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
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. |
The Sekor CS series certainly has a sturdier barrel than the cheap Sekor E / EF series lenses (e. g. 3.5/28, 2.8/35, 1.7/50). Whether this infuences the image quality I don't know. Fact is that comparing ten Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/135mm lenses (another cheapo) has shown quite a bit of variation of its image quality. That's something I've never seen in my test series of Minolta lenses (e. g. MD-III 1.7/50mm, MD-III 3.5/35-70mm, AF 4-4.5/28-135mm).
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Pancolart
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3701 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
I really did wonder what lens the Nione is . Thanks for sharing, Yashica ML 35mm is goood. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
bp_reid
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 06 Jan 2021 Posts: 57 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bp_reid wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
bp_reid wrote: |
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. |
I'd be interested, too! As I said, the more "modern" vintage 2.8/35mm lenses are really uncommon here - and usually I simply take what's coming in when looking at local photo stores, websites or thrift stores. Of course I could find everything and more if searching worldwide - but I never do that.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
I really did wonder what lens the Nione is . |
Yep, maybe one of the Admins could correct that? It was about midnight when I published the stuff ...
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
visualopsins
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10946 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Pancolart wrote: |
I really did wonder what lens the Nione is . |
Yep, maybe one of the Admins could correct that? It was about midnight when I published the stuff ...
S |
Should be able to correct yourself...click Edit button, click in Subject field... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
sergun
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 289 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
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 _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote: |
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 |
Thanks for this complementary information, especially concerning the Nikkor-K and the Canon nFD! Good to see that you share my opinion about the Topcor RE; we now can be fairly sure that it is fact a "weak" lens (and not just a bad copy).
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
blotafton
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1608 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
papasito
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
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 |
The newer Sony GM 16-35/2,8 is by far better than the ZA. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
papasito
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
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. |
I had the Minolta AF 35/2 and the ZA 35/1,4. Both great lenses, but the GM 35/1,4 is better. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
papasito
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
tb_a
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote: |
I had the Minolta AF 35/2 and the ZA 35/1,4. Both great lenses, but the GM 35/1,4 is better. |
That's fair enough that the Sony GM FE 35/1.4 for EUR 1700 performs better than the Minolta AF 35/2 for EUR 200.
However, the Minolta AF 35/2 performs at F2.8 comparable to the Minolta MD 35/2.8 at F5.6.
IMHO sufficient corner sharpness for landscapes; I didn't see any comparison with the GM lens up to now but I doubt that I will invest that much in another 35mm lens anyway.... _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
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. |
The Schneider Curtagon mainly has field curvature - the other problems are well well contained. This means that you'll get very good images even at f2.8 when shooting threedimesional objects such as groups of persons. Below there are two crops, again from the corner of 24 MP FF, to illustrate that.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
stevemark
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3908 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote: |
The newer Sony GM 16-35/2,8 is by far better than the ZA. |
papasito wrote: |
I had the Minolta AF 35/2 and the ZA 35/1,4. Both great lenses, but the GM 35/1,4 is better. |
papasito wrote: |
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. |
Since most people here cannot afford to have these lenses, I'm sure many would be interested to see a similar comparison as I just made showing the performance of the Sony / Minolta GM 2.8/16-35 and Sony / Minolta GM 1.4/35 (maybe including one or two of the viontage 35mm lenses such as the Minolta MD-III, just as a reference).
I myself have tested several of the new generation lenses, starting with the Zeiss Otus series, but I had two main issues with them:
1) I can't use them on the Sony A900 which still produces the best colors of all cameras I know when used properly
2) these new lenses are way too big / heavy to use them for travelling and hiking
Of course these new lenses are much better than the previous series, but that doesn't translate to nicer images. When I make a large calender, I myself would prefer higher resolution than just 24MP. However, most people don't care about that; for them the colors and the luminous and nearly "translucent" character of the A900 JPGs is much more important than the highest resolution. A few days ago I had a very quick shooting (just a few minutes ... ) with the CFO of a large Swiss industrial company, and he was immediately caught by the A900 images. Black and white only, but taken in natural light and with wery well balanced shadows / highlights. Neither A7 nor A7II, A7RII or GFX50 can do this.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|