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

This time 28mm...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:06 pm    Post subject: This time 28mm... Reply with quote

Three 28mm contenders:


SMC Pentax-M 2.8/28 | Vivitar 2.5/28 (Kiron) | Olympus Zuiko 3.5/28


All shots at f5.6.

Pentax


Vivitar


Olympus



Here are the comparison shots. Click on the thumbs to get real size pics. (Careful! About 1MB each.)

Centre crop


Edge crop


My verdict:

Crispiness:
1. Zuiko 3.5/28
2. Vivitar 2.5/28
3. Pentax 2.8/28

CAs
1. Pentax 2.8/28
2. Zuiko 3.5/28
3. Vivitar 2.5/28

Edge performance (crop cam)
1. Pentax 2.8/28
2. Zuiko 3.5/28 & Vivitar 2.5/28

Distortion
1. Pentax 2.8/28
2. Zuiko 3.5/28 & Vivitar 2.5/28 (draw)

Field of View (angle, the wider the better)
1. Zuiko 3.5/28
2. Vivtar 2.5/28
3. Pentax 2.8/28

Result: It is really hard to make out a clear winner. As a basis for post-production the Pentax lens is ahead, the Vivitar is the fastest one and the Zuiko shows the widest field of view. So the decision about which lens to take is rather a personal preference than based on an objective ranking.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice test! At glance on first big pictures I didn't see significant difference between them , except Pentax has a bit better color rendering.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for this, I know what a pain these can be to put together. I have a SMC-A 28/2.8, and a different Vivitar 2.5 than yours. And I really like the 28mm perspective.

To my eye, there's not much to choose between them in resolution - the Zuiko has higher contrast which makes it crisper, as you say.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO these tests should be done in un-filter, full sunlight. Color transmition is different in hazy light. The difference between the best performer and the worst is levelled by unchallenging conditions. Not that these are completely useless. But look at how hard it is to separate them. Wink

Last edited by F16SUNSHINE on Wed May 21, 2008 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Difficult one.
I would accept the Zuiko 3.5/28 is an excellent lens.
I know the Pentax is because I use the SMC Pentax-A 2.8/28
I would like to have seen the Tamron f2.5 28mm in the line up, as I have a problem deciding if my SMC or my Tamron are the better!
I would also like to see the old M42 f3.5 28mm Pentax lens there.
Now for the controversy.
I have tried two examples of the Vivitar 2.5/28 and I did not rate them. Good maybe, but nothing like the Pentax or Tamron for ‘Resolving’ power.
The Viv is sharp but it doesn’t resolve the same detail as the others. It isn't in the same class.
(We have loads of them in Swindon as Vivitar UK used to be here, I think our photo club still has a couple of them unsold)


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the 3-Dimensionality ("airness") of the Zuiko better in this scene. I can feel better the air between objects, which I can't say of the scene as taken by the other two lenses.

Under the other respects, I find the differences little significant.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice test Carsten!
thanks for horizontal crop
I don't see much difference in crop
you are lucky with your zuiko 28 3.5, on mine border are bad
seems there is a lot of copy variation with olympus


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your replies, Gentlemen.

@poilu: Yes, I like my Zuiko 3.5/28 a lot. I guess it must be a decent copy.
@Orio: That's a great observation and I agree. The "3Dness" of the Zuiko picture is higher than in the others, with the Pentax better than the Viv. This Zuiko shows a good deal of micro-contrast.
@Rob: A Takumar and a Tamron in this test would indeed have been nice. As far as the Viv is concerned, it might not be the best 28mm lens but it is so cheap to get and thus offers a great value, because it is pretty close to the others.
@F16: True, but I had to take what I got. Wink
@Nesster & Attila: I'm glad you agree to my impression that these are pretty close.

We have to remember that I shot these frames with a crop cam. A "real" wide angle test would need a full frame cam. But unfortunately, I do not own a 5D. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Carsten Embarassed I did not want to Poo Poo your test. I just think it is difficult if making a decision on a long term choice without proper light. Soft light pulls all the models toward the middle.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carsten

thanks for another very helpful test series. I agree there seems relatively little to choose between them from this sample. I think the nikkor 28/2,8 (which Attila also has) may just take the prize if compared to these three - but we certainly have a wide choice of good lenses at this focal length.

patrickh


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Sorry Carsten Embarassed I did not want to Poo Poo your test. I just think it is difficult if making a decision on a long term choice without proper light. Soft light pulls all the models toward the middle.


No problem. You are right.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: 28mm lenses cpmpared. Reply with quote

I've tried out a few of these 28mm lenses myself.

The Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 is poor compared to the f3.5 variety. The Pentax-A 28mm f2.8 is considerably better than the "M" lens.

The Tamron AD2 28mm f2.8 is also quite poor and would have to agree its a tossup as to whether its any better or any worse than the Pentax-M.
The Tamron AD1 is probably a better bet than both of 'em.

Tokina EL28mm f2.8 is a very nice lens and would be the pick of the lenses which I've put through the paces, but the Sigma mini-wide 11 is a touch sharper still.

But there again, I'm expecting a Vivitar (kiron) 28mm f2 in the post, I wonder how that one will fare @ f2.8 against the opposition?


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is always difficult to judge on a lens just by testing one copy. There is always more or less variety in different copies of the same model.

Esp. with the SMC Pentax-M (2.8/28 and 1.7/50) I have realised that, since some users are thrilled by these lenses, others are rather disappointed.
Either I seem to have decent copies of these two lenses or they really hit my personal aesthetical sense, because I like them both.

I have some more 28mm lenses that I did not bring that day:
Kiron 2.0/28 MC, Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 2.8/28 (Komine), Petri 2.8/28 MC Macro, Raynox Auto 2.8/28 and a Super Albinar 2.8/28 SC for Canon FD.
I used to have two other more than decent 28mm lenses which I have sold in order to finance new purchases: Canon EF 2.8/28 and Yashica ML 2.8/28.

None of these lenses was a disappointment on my crop cams and the Super Albinar produces surprisingly fine results on my Canon FTb QL.

I think it was PeterQD from this board who once mentioned that the differenc between "good" lenses such as the Pentax, the Zuiko or a Tamron and supposedly "very good" lenses like Zeiss or Leica is quite small. And I agree. Almost any lens produced by known manufacturers will provide a decent performance (given that the lens is in good condition). Up at the top it rather is a matter of personal reference (looks, handling, character etc.) that makes the difference.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: 28mm lenses cpmpared. Reply with quote

Ironfan wrote:

But there again, I'm expecting a Vivitar (kiron) 28mm f2 in the post, I wonder how that one will fare @ f2.8 against the opposition?


When comparing photos sectionally, the differences between lenses are smaller than most people expects, especially on APS-C cameras.
Most differences usually reside in edge/corner performance, and at wide open.
In the central portion of well focused f/5.6 images the measurable differences in resolution between lenses are usually negligible, except for the very low quality lenses.

A different thing is the holistic perception, that is the sensation that one has when looking at a photograph. This is often the result of the interaction of the measurable differences, with the non-measurable ones (such as the type of bokeh).
It comes without saying that this kind of perception is highly subjective and hardly a consistent basis for evaluation.
-


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ironfan
I respect your findings but my own are very different.
I have owned the Tamron Adaptall 1 f2.8 28mm from new (1976) I also bought a second copy a couple of years ago because it was 'Cheap'
I own 2 copies of the Tamron f2.5 28mm (Adaptall2) the first one from about 1980.
I have used both models on film and crop digital.

My f2.5 28mm lens are far better than the earlier Adaptall 1 models. However I do like the f2.8 28mm for its more 'Rounded' rendering.

I find little or no difference between the SMC-A f2.8 28mm and the Tamron Adaptall 2 f2.5 28mm. I only use the Pentax lens because it is a bit smaller and handles better on my Pentax cameras.

I have tried the older M42 mount Takumar f2.8 28mm and wasn't impressed, I haven't tried the f3.5 version which some say is better?

I also use the little known Tamron SP f3.5/4.2 28-80mm (Model 27A). A lens that thinks its a prime.

I will no doubt have lots of people disagree but (To date) you are the first person I have heard of who calls the Tamron f2.5 28mm 'Poor'

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
Photodo Grades the Tamron f2.5 28mm a very respectable 3.2.
This is the same as many Canon primes and the same as the Nikkor AF D f2.8 28mm


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said, one could easily get a "poor" copy. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fact that almost always you can find measurable differences between two copies of one lens should be enough warning that this kind of tests has inherent limitations.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it cannot be a test that is generally valid, but it can be a test of my own lenses, to see which one is best (and which ones might be a candidate for selling one day).

And, it's fun. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
Ironfan
I respect your findings but my own are very different.
I have owned the Tamron Adaptall 1 f2.8 28mm from new (1976) I also bought a second copy a couple of years ago because it was 'Cheap'
I own 2 copies of the Tamron f2.5 28mm (Adaptall2) the first one from about 1980.
I have used both models on film and crop digital.

My f2.5 28mm lens are far better than the earlier Adaptall 1 models. However I do like the f2.8 28mm for its more 'Rounded' rendering.

I find little or no difference between the SMC-A f2.8 28mm and the Tamron Adaptall 2 f2.5 28mm. I only use the Pentax lens because it is a bit smaller and handles better on my Pentax cameras.

I have tried the older M42 mount Takumar f2.8 28mm and wasn't impressed, I haven't tried the f3.5 version which some say is better?

I also use the little known Tamron SP f3.5/4.2 28-80mm (Model 27A). A lens that thinks its a prime.

I will no doubt have lots of people disagree but (To date) you are the first person I have heard of who calls the Tamron f2.5 28mm 'Poor'

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
Photodo Grades the Tamron f2.5 28mm a very respectable 3.2.
This is the same as many Canon primes and the same as the Nikkor AF D f2.8 28mm


I've had two Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 lenses pass through my hands one was poor the other a bit better. The f3.5 was much better, but loses points for being a bit on the slow side.

To the earlier poster who mentions centre sharpness. All I can say, is that when it comes to wide-angle lenses,
sharpness across the whole image is important, otherwise what is the point of a wide-angle? I generally use them to get as much of a room in or for landscapes, perhaps with no one particular focal point.

I've also had a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Komine and that was quite ordinary, so much so, I'd forgotten to even mention it Surprised)
Every Sigma mini-wide I've owned has been good, people should look out for them, they're cheap enough and don't require any adapter.

With regards Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 lenses, I've seen a few of these in my time and they've all been great. But as with the Pentax 28mm f2.8 I do prefer them in A's they just shade the M's.

I should point out that I'm not interesting in testing lenses at f5.6 or 8, but how they perform at f2.8, to me that is the test of a good lens, how do they perform close to wide-open? More light is not important for landscapes, but definitely is for interiors.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ironfan wrote:
The f3.5 was much better, but loses points for being a bit on the slow side..


Well, f3.5 or f2.8 is not that important with an 28mm lens on a full frame cam. It gets more important on a crop cam, since a 28mm almost works as a "normal" lens.

Ironfan wrote:
I've also had a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Komine and that was quite ordinary.

That also surprises me. I have one of those (gave it to my father who needed a good M42 28mm) and I really liked it - very good results.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 2:08 pm    Post subject: Re: 28mm lenses cpmpared. Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
When comparing photos sectionally, the differences between lenses are smaller than most people expects, especially on APS-C cameras.
Most differences usually reside in edge/corner performance, and at wide open.
In the central portion of well focused f/5.6 images the measurable differences in resolution between lenses are usually negligible, except for the very low quality lenses.

A different thing is the holistic perception, that is the sensation that one has when looking at a photograph. This is often the result of the interaction of the measurable differences, with the non-measurable ones (such as the type of bokeh).
It comes without saying that this kind of perception is highly subjective and hardly a consistent basis for evaluation.
-


I'm in agreement with those statements.

Additionally, it is good to have two flavors of performance - those legendary lenses that are sharp and contrasty to the edges wide open, and then those which soften up wide open. This way, once you know the copies you own, you can dial in the performance curve you want simply by choosing one lens or another.

For example, I quite like my TX Vivitar 28/2.5 - this is NOT the usual 2.5 most have - it's a '37' so Tokina made. It has a '70s feel to the image, probably a bit of distortion, and it focuses close.

But, when I did a quick unscientific test, the SMC-A 2.8 out resolved it at least past 5.6. So yes, the SMC-A is the better lens, but for a certain feel the TX does a better job.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to see the Zuiko 28mm f/2.0 tested (and f/2.8, also great), apparently the 2.0 (not sure about the f/2.Cool adjusts the internal elements as you focus clother to retain high resolution at close-focussing Smile

i'll have to add one to my zuiko collection.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like I just ended up with a Hanimex 28mm 2.8 (went with a Praktica PLC2 and Pentacon Electric 50), these are to be gifts for brother in law, but in the next week or two I can add a comparison of this, the Vivitar TX, and the SMC-A.