View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:58 am Post subject: 2nd try: nFD50/1.4 vs MC50/1.4 vs MC58/1.2 (Update: BOKEH!) |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
It seems I misfocused the 58/1.2 a bit in my first comparison, this one should be alright.
UPDATE: I've added a quick bokeh comparison below.
note: If the crops aren't displayed right (above each other rather than next to each other), that might be due to your chosen "Board Style". The "mflenses" style (which is the default if you're not logged in) inserts a line break for some reason, the other 3 styles don't.
Scene - 50mm:
Scene - 58mm:
Sharpening:
(no sharpening on export)
Minolta 58mm - f/1.2
Minolta 50mm - f/1.4
Canon 50mm - f/1.4
Canon 50mm - f/1.7
Minolta 58mm - f/2
Minolta 50mm - f/2
Canon 50mm - f/2
Minolta 58mm - f/2.4
Minolta 50mm - f/2.4
Canon 50mm - f/2.4
Minolta 58mm - f/2.8
Minolta 50mm - f/2.8
Canon 50mm - f/2.8
Minolta 58mm - f/3.4
Minolta 50mm - f/3.4
Canon 50mm - f/3.4
Minolta 58mm - f/4
Minolta 50mm - f/4
Canon 50mm - f/4
Minolta 58mm - f/4.8
Minolta 50mm - f/4.8
Canon 50mm - f/4.8
Minolta 58mm - f/5.6
Minolta 50mm - f/5.6
Canon 50mm - f/5.6
Minolta 58mm - f/6.7
Minolta 50mm - f/6.7
Canon 50mm - f/6.7
Minolta 58mm - f/8
Minolta 50mm - f/8
Canon 50mm - f/8
Minolta 58mm - f/9.5
Minolta 50mm - f/9.5
Canon 50mm - f/9.5
Minolta 58mm - f/11
Minolta 50mm - f/11
Canon 50mm - f/11
_________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
A quick bokeh test (click on the pics for full resolution):
PP (white balance, raised shadows) is identical for all shots, the light was changing rather quickly unfortunately.
Minolta 58mm - f/1.2
Minolta 50mm - f/1.4 || Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.7
Minolta 58mm - f/2 || Minolta 50mm - f/2 || Canon 50mm f/2
Minolta 58mm - f/2.4 || Minolta 50mm - f/2.4 || Canon 50mm f/2.4
Minolta 58mm - f/2.8 || Minolta 50mm - f/2.8 || Canon 50mm f/2.8
Minolta 58mm - f/3.4 || Minolta 50mm - f/3.4 || Canon 50mm f/3.4
Minolta 58mm - f/4 || Minolta 50mm - f/4 || Canon 50mm f/4
Minolta 58mm - f/4.8 || Minolta 50mm - f/4.8 || Canon 50mm f/4.8
Minolta 58mm - f/5.6 || Minolta 50mm - f/5.6 || Canon 50mm f/5.6
_________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
So the conclusion is: no reason to get the 58/1.2?
Between the 50s the Canon is better until f/2, then at f/2.8 the Minolta suddenly makes a giant leap in sharpness and contrast and overtakes it. It'd be interesting to compare also with the slower 50s, like Minolta 50/1.7 and 50/2.0. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
miran wrote: |
So the conclusion is: no reason to get the 58/1.2? |
Pick your favourite!
_________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
RTI
Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau
|
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RTI wrote:
miran wrote: |
So the conclusion is: no reason to get the 58/1.2?
|
If you're looking for a ~50mm lens with good rendering and bokeh, the 58/1.2 is one of the best. Untill you actually start taking photos, sharpness isn't all in a lens... _________________ Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Zorki-4, Canon AE-1
MF:Rokkor 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 58/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.7, M39 Jupiter-9 (silver 1955), Zuiko 35-70/3.6
AF: Sigma Art 35/1.4, Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 306 Location: EU
|
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
Canon's sharpness and corrections are very good at f/1.4 in center of the pic. Border performance actually seems worse than Minolta 50mm.
Thanks for the tests |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
y wrote: |
Thanks for the tests :) |
You're welcome! I'd do these for myself anyway, it's good to have a few more pairs of eyes.
This would be my interpretation:
f/1.4:
The Canon has noticably more contrast and perhaps a slight(!) advantage in center resolution, the Minolta is a bit sharper in the corners.
f/2:
The Canon still has more contrast and less CA, the Minolta is noticably sharper in the corners.
f/2.8:
The Canon still has the edge in contrast but the corners haven't improved much, the Minolta's corners are improving quickly and are a lot sharper than the Canon's.
f/4:
Contrast is now almost equal, the Canon's corners are improving but they're about a stop behind the Minolta's.
f/5.6:
Both have improved a bit, the Minolta is still ahead in the corners.
f/8:
The Minolta is still slightly ahead in the corners but it's close.
f/11:
Nearly identical, the Canon has cought up in the corners but that's probably because diffraction is limiting the Minolta.
I'd prefer the Canon for low light shooting and subject isolation (that's a job for the 58/1.2 though), plus it's lighter and I like the Canon adapters. (Pre-)setting the aperture on the lens and quickly switching between wide open and the set aperture with the adapter is quite nice, I wish the other adapters had the same "lock <-> open" ring.
The Minolta is the better lens overall, not far behind wide open and well ahead beyond f/2.
I guess I'll have to keep both...
I'm setting up my 35mm comparison at the moment (nFD35/2 vs MD35/1.8 vs MD35/2.8), this is the close-up scene (~1.2 distance):
(shot with the nFD35/2 at f/4, click for full resolution)
Any suggestions?
I don't expect much focus shift, I wonder if I should bother to refocus for every aperture.
I will shoot a series refocused for the corners to test for field curvature. I'll put a grey card in there for white balance (I'll use one of the lenses as a reference) and I'll leave the exposure up to my Minolta Autometer IV-F.
I'll probably fill the empty spaces in the back with books or CDs to have more places for LoCA to show up.
I might also shoot a series with the lenses set to ~0.4m and/or to infinity.
EDIT:
I think this will do:
(Shot with the nFD35/2 at f/2. Not bad, is it?) _________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
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
|