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

TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:41 pm    Post subject: TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF Reply with quote
Here's another one - this time comparing a few well known 28 mm vintage lenses.

I've chosen to compare mainly the f2.8 versions from different manufacturers. Exceptions are Konica (no 2.8/28mm made), Minolta (MD-III 2/28mm and MC-X 3.5/28mm [5/5] included), and Olympus (no f2.8 at hand, I chose f3.5 instead).

For time being just the overview - a few comments and larger crops will follow tomorrow.

AS USUAL - CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO SEE FULL RESOLUTION



S

EDIT correct labelling of Pentacon Auto 2.8/29mm (was previously 2.8/28mm)

Last edited by stevemark on Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Whoo Turtle Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon FD and the 3 first Minoltas win. I've seen samples of the Distagon the were sharp from edge to edge, strange maybe it was aps-c.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great info. Thanks. Like 1


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great work steve, very interesting.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting.
Surprised that the Konica 7/7 rubber grip performs less well than the metal one, which is younger. And, at f11, all lenses are quite useable (except for the Pentacon and a couple more).


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:
Interesting.
Surprised that the Konica 7/7 rubber grip performs less well than the metal one, which is younger. And, at f11, all lenses are quite useable (except for the Pentacon and a couple more).


Yep, there are a few points to discuss ... including your observation. Tomorrow ...

S


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Steve,

Thanks for taking the time. Surprising result that the Distagon did that poorly given the rep the lens has....


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
amazing work Steve <3


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:42 am    Post subject: Re: TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Here's another one - this time comparing a few well known 28 mm vintage lenses.

I've chosen to compare mainly the f2.8 versions from different manufacturers. Exceptions are Konica (no 2.8/28mm made), Minolta (MD-III 2/28mm and MC-X 3.5/28mm [5/5] included), and Olympus (no f2.8 at hand, I chose f3.5 instead).

For time being just the overview - a few comments and larger crops will follow tomorrow.

AS USUAL - CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO SEE FULL RESOLUTION



S


A few questions/comments on this very interesting test:

- Is the difference of quality between FD and nFD due to copy variation or different computations?
- MDIII 28 3,5 shows strong performance, among the best, and ahead of MDIII 28 2,8 5/5. However my copies of these lenses make me prefer the 28 2,8. (And they are all homogeneous and well centered without tilted focus plane).The reason is that if you exclude the extreme corner that is the subject of this crop the 28 2,8 is better on the frame including borders and corners (with the exception of extreme corners) hence being for me the best 28. So I am happy to sacrifice the last few pixels to the benefit of the whole frame. As indicated by Steve the 28 2,8 is probably a 29 or 30mm if that matters. And there is some residual lateral chromatic aberrations in difficult situations but I can deal with that.
- Note that all my findings are based on pics taken with focus shift corrected (focus at taking aperture).
- Also the Canon lenses suffer much less from focus shift than the Minoltas. I do not consider the Minolta inferior to the Canon because I use my lenses at taking aperture. If I did not I would often consider the Canon as the better lens.

Last edited by lumens pixel on Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mamiya SX the best wide open? That distagon might have some issues , I should compare mine against nFD ,but I've had good results with it . These edge tests ,definitely clear up lots of things , one of them ,the quality control Wich might be interesting to check on c/y zeiss, wich I've would of expect to be best among all. The pentacon I assume is the 29mm not 28,I have it brand new, i find it more like a character lens even though it was made late 80-90's?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephan, taken from your table the older 7/7 version of the Minolta 28/2.8 is more or less the reference.

Starting from there I've compared some of my 28mm lenses with this version on my A7R II. However, I've limited my test to F5.6 as I don't see any reason why I should use F2.8 for landscapes. Most probably even a modern lens will show some shortcomings at this aperture setting, at least at pixel peeping level.

Anyway, only the SMC Pentax-A and the Minolta AF 28/2.8 lenses have been at the same level or even a little better. I would rate 1. Minolta AF, 2. Pentax-A and 3. Minolta MD I (optically identical to MC-X).

Thanks for your effort. Safed me a lot of work. Wink

Verdict: My best 28mm landscape lens is the Minolta (Sony) AF 28/2.8. I didn't find any room for improvement when shooting at F5.6 which I consider as fair enough.

Gruezi & merci vielmals,


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:00 pm    Post subject: Re: TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Here's another one - this time comparing a few well known 28 mm vintage lenses.

I've chosen to compare mainly the f2.8 versions from different manufacturers. Exceptions are Konica (no 2.8/28mm made), Minolta (MD-III 2/28mm and MC-X 3.5/28mm [5/5] included), and Olympus (no f2.8 at hand, I chose f3.5 instead).

For time being just the overview - a few comments and larger crops will follow tomorrow.

AS USUAL - CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO SEE FULL RESOLUTION



Like 1 Like 1 Like 1

Extremely informative. Thank you! In my tests, f8 usually provided peak performance for landscape shooting. I am wondering whether you found that as well?

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:
Interesting.
Surprised that the Konica 7/7 rubber grip performs less well than the metal one, which is younger. And, at f11, all lenses are quite useable (except for the Pentacon and a couple more).


Yes, I noticed that as well and did a second run today, just to be sure that I hadn't mixed up something. Same result, though! There are two possible explanations:

1) slighty decentered copy of the rubber grip AR 3.5/28mm [7/7]
2) Konica did some slight modifications to the design of the [7/7] 3.5/28mm (quite possible - the 28mm lenses were produced in very large numbers, and they were quite cost-sensitive => "optimization" ??)


Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for taking the time. Surprising result that the Distagon did that poorly given the rep the lens has....

Back in its time the 2.8/28mm Distagon was one of the cheapest Zeiss CY lenses, and by far cheaper than e. g. the 2.8/25mm (which actually is a 26mm). It never had a stellar reputation, and Zeiss geeks such as Marco Cavina confirm this.

lumens pixel wrote:

A few questions/comments on this very interesting test:

- Is the difference of quality between FD and nFD due to copy variation or different computations?

I'm pretty sure it's due to the different computations. FD is much bigger which often means "easier to design". I have several nFD 2.8/28mm and check that later.

lumens pixel wrote:
- MDIII 28 3,5 shows strong performance, among the best, and ahead of MDIII 28 2,8 5/5. However my copies of these lenses make me prefer the 28 2,8. (And they are all homogeneous and well centered without tilted focus plane).The reason is that if you exclude the extreme corner that is the subject of this crop the 28 2,8 is better on the frame including borders and corners (with the exception of extreme corners) hence being for me the best 28. So I am happy to sacrifice the last few pixels to the benefit of the whole frame. As indicated by Steve the 28 2,8 is probably a 29 or 30mm if that matters. And there is some residual lateral chromatic aberrations in difficult situations but I can deal with that.

Similar observation with the MD-III 2/28mm, especially when using it on high-res cameras (about 50 MP). The 2/28mm has a better resolution than the slower MD-III 28mm lenses over most of the image (about 90%). However corners don't look better than with its slowr counterparts. That's why I usually recommend the MD-III 2/28mm, especially since it's so small. And it has floating focusing, unlike the slower brethren.


lumens pixel wrote:

- Note that all my findings are based on pics taken with focus shift corrected (focus at taking aperture).
- Also the Canon lenses suffer much less from focus shift than the Minoltas. I do not consider the Minolta inferior to the Canon because I use my lenses at taking aperture. If I did not I would often consider the Canon as the better lens.


I've just re-checked that. Using the MC-X 2.8/28mm I can't see the slightest difference between

1) focusing at f2.8 and then stopping down to f5.6 and
2) focusing at f5.6

See image below! Did I miss something?




kiddo wrote:
Mamiya SX the best wide open?

That's another thing to discuss. Most 28mm shown here simply have "bad corners" wide open - maybe 5-10% of the entire image area. However, both the Mamiya SX and even more pronounced the Topcor RE have a more even correction - meaning (relatively) better corners, but worse midfield at f2.8 and even f5.6. Larger crops taken at f2.8 will follow to illustrate this point.


kiddo wrote:

That distagon might have some issues

Maybe - maybe not. I don't have a second Distagon 2.8/28mm to prove or disprove - however I did compare other Zeiss CY wideables such as the Distagon 4/18mm and the Distagon 2.8/25mm side-by-side with their Minolta counterparts: As with the 2.8/28mm shown here, the other Zeiss lenses (4/18mm and 2.8/25mm) were not better than their Minolta MD counterparts. Thus, for time being, I assume that my Distagon 2.8/28mm is OK.

kiddo wrote:

I should compare mine against nFD

Yep, would be good to have a indepent second test result.

kiddo wrote:

The pentacon I assume is the 29mm not 28,I have it brand new, i find it more like a character lens even though it was made late 80-90's?


You're right. I'll correct that immediately. Thanks for mentioning!

S


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:53 pm    Post subject: Re: TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:


Extremely informative. Thank you! In my tests, f8 usually provided peak performance for landscape shooting. I am wondering whether you found that as well?

-Charles


On high res cameras such as A7RII the optimal aperture for large parts of the image probably is f8. On 24 MP FF cameras the difference between f8 and f11 (due to diffraction) is negligeable. However, and especially with wideangles, the corners sometimes improve visibly from f8 to f11.

In the case of faster lenses (f2 or f1.4) I usually prefer to test f2 - f4 - f8, though.

S


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:56 pm    Post subject: Re: TEST Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
charley5 wrote:


Extremely informative. Thank you! In my tests, f8 usually provided peak performance for landscape shooting. I am wondering whether you found that as well?

-Charles


On high res cameras such as A7RII the optimal aperture for large parts of the image probably is f8. On 24 MP FF cameras the difference between f8 and f11 (due to diffraction) is negligeable. However, and especially with wideangles, the corners sometimes improve visibly from f8 to f11.

In the case of faster lenses (f2 or f1.4) I usually prefer to test f2 - f4 - f8, though.

S


Excellent. Thank you.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Whoo Turtle Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Like 1 Like 1

Just to say again Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:




lumens pixel wrote:

- Note that all my findings are based on pics taken with focus shift corrected (focus at taking aperture).
- Also the Canon lenses suffer much less from focus shift than the Minoltas. I do not consider the Minolta inferior to the Canon because I use my lenses at taking aperture. If I did not I would often consider the Canon as the better lens.


I've just re-checked that. Using the MC-X 2.8/28mm I can't see the slightest difference between

1) focusing at f2.8 and then stopping down to f5.6 and
2) focusing at f5.6

See image below! Did I miss something?



S


I do not see any difference in this case between the different focusing methods. Maybe focus shift is more evident at mid distance. I will check again. Note that the 28 2,8 5/5 is not the worst offender. The 35 2,8 was far more critical.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Note that the 28 2,8 5/5 is not the worst offender. The 35 2,8 was far more critical.


I'll check that one tomorrow, using the A7RII (which should be more critical). Thanks for the information!

S


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all this work! I am not into pixel evaluation but good to see most lenses perform well


PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
... good to see most lenses perform well


That was exactly my impression of the 28mm vintage lenses before I made the tests: No really outstanding performer, but a lot of good lenses. No we have some clarity!

Same can be said of the 2.8/135mm lenses (with a few exceptions of course), BTW.

S


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had md-III 28/2.8 (7/7) and both md-III 28/3.5 and distagon 28/2.8 at the same time. 7/7 turned out to be a curve. The 3.5 showed very good performance for its money but liked the distagon more for the landscape.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Mamiya-Sekor SX 28mm 2.8 test also represents the Rolleinar MC 28mm 2.8 (edited, had 35mm written there). The Rolleinar HFT 28mm 2.8 is a clone of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8.

I wonder where the Minolta 28mm 2.5 would fit in the ranking if decently deyellowed.

Last edited by Ernst Dinkla on Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:34 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
The Mamiya-Sekor SX 28mm 2.8 also represents the Rolleinar 35mm 2.8.
I wonder where the Minolta 28mm 2.5 would fit in the ranking if decently deyellowed.


I have two MCII 28 2,5 and I have noticed a ton of field curvature before f5,6 (perfectly deyellowed samples). The lens is quite usable starting f4 on non flat subjects and no infinity landscape and is very very nice at 5,6. 6,7 is stellar. Now the question is why bother with the weight if you can own a 28 2,8 5/5 for a few bucks? Perhaps out of focus smoothness....


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
I wonder where the Minolta 28mm 2.5 would fit in the ranking if decently deyellowed.


I'll compare a few faster f2 and f2.5 28mm lenses later on. Still missing the Nikkor 2/28mm, though ... Otherwise the Canon FD and the new FD are here, as well as the different Minolta f2.5 and f2 computations, and a few non-OEM fast 28mm lenses.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2