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

4 short macro lenses compared, surprising results!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:02 pm    Post subject: 4 short macro lenses compared, surprising results! Reply with quote
Comparison of 4 short macro lenses. Magnification 1:5.

First center comparisons:
CenterComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Wide open, best resolution from Canon and Yashica, but Canon more vivid colors and bit better contrast. At smaller apertures, all lenses show very good resolution. I think the Nikkor has best (micro) contrast, but hard to tell for sure. All lenses get really good, the Vivitar included.

Then, corner comparisons (f/2.5/2.8/4/5.6/Cool
CornerComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Surprise! The Canon and Nikkor can't compete with the Vivitar and Yashica in this regard. Is this perhaps a result of the floating element design which makes them better performers at long distances?

PS the Canon and Nikkor have very good center performance already wide open @ infinity; of these two, the Canon has better corners.

The Yashica is softer wide open (spherical aberration) @ infinity but gets very good stopped down. Also in the corners, but it has less contrast than Canon & Nikkor.
The Vivitar I didn’t test @ infinity. I expect it to be less good than Canon and Nikkor.

Still, who would have expected such good performance from the humble Vivitar?


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Surprising, indeed


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting, thank you.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for these.
There is also a Yashica 60mm macro made by Tomioka which appears also as a Mamiya Sekor IIRC
Who Made the Vivitar?
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

Who Made the Vivitar?


According to my information, it may have been Komine. But I will defer to more knowledgeable people Smile

Edit: The Vivitar seems to be highly regarded by the members of the Pentax forum:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-55mm-f2-8-1-1-macro.html

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Komine code for vivitar is: serial number starts with 28


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Komine code for vivitar is: serial number starts with 28


I just now searched eBay for a Vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro and looked at the serial of the first one that came up. Yes, serial starts with 28. So it appears that these were indeed made by Komine.

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks everyone.
Komine certainly produced some top product in their time.
cheers
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Comparison of 4 short macro lenses. Magnification 1:5.
Then, corner comparisons (f/2.5/2.8/4/5.6/Cool
...
Surprise! The Canon and Nikkor can't compete with the Vivitar and Yashica in this regard.


Ultrapix wrote:
Surprising, indeed

Really? Still surprising? I have a few 1st gen Canon AF lenses here (not the 2.5/50 Macro, though), and they are quiet a bit worse than the corresponding 1st gen MinAF lenses. 4/70-210 comes to my mind.

MF Nikkors are famous. Are they better than than the corresponding Minolta / Canon / Konica lenses? In rare cases: yes (AiS 2.8/180mm ED, for instance). Usually they aren't better, and quite often they are (slightly) worse.


caspert79 wrote:
Is this perhaps a result of the floating element design which makes them better performers at long distances?

I don't think so - floating elements (or double floating elements, as with the Micro-Nikkor 2.8/55) were meant to keep the performance good over a wider range of distances. And these macro/micro lenses often were optimized for 1:10 or 1:5. I doubt that Nikon would optimized its Micro lens for infinity ...

Thanks for sharing these test results - I may look into a few other "short" macros such as the 50mm Canon FD, the 55mm Hexanon AR, the 60mm AF Nikkor and the 50mm AF Minolta, the 50mm Rokkor, the 55mm Topcor and the 50mm Mamiya Sekor E.

S


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe the Vivitar is also the only one of these lenses that can achieve 1:1 magnification. At some point I had both the Vivitar and the Nikon 55/3.5 and decided to keep the Nikon – I found it sharper, smaller and lighter. This Nikon is quite possibly the sharpest lens I've ever owned.

Thanks for the test images.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had the vivitar in the past, and it was an excellent walk about lens.

Of all the 50-ish macro lenses I've had, the vivitar had the longest full extension, and IIRC, the closest MFD.
I had no qualms about using it at infinity on film, which I did a lot of.
It seemed to perform well at everything I put it up to, and it's grain was well defined under the enlarger with the grain magnifier.

Today, I actually prefer the Nikkor 55mm f 3.5 P.C. Micro for it's rendering- largely a matter of personal taste....

The Vivitar was properly coated, and gave accurate color with slide film.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the test, I'm really surprised of the yashica macro . I've read about the 100mm also that is supposed to be a very sharp lens, but whenever people talk about 90-100mm macros ,this one is never mentioned .


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Where's the Takumar? Smile


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thanks for the test, I'm really surprised of the yashica macro . I've read about the 100mm also that is supposed to be a very sharp lens, but whenever people talk about 90-100mm macros ,this one is never mentioned .


It’s a bit uncommon, I believe it was produced only for a short time.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I realize it wasn't tested here, but does anyone have an opinion on the Olympus OM 50mm 3.5 macro? I have one, but nothing to test it against and not sure if it is a useful exercise to take pictures of a 20 euro banknote (good test subject by the way) using the OM without anything to compare it to.

Out of curiosity: How did you keep the banknote flat?

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I kept it flat with tape.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just took a picture out of my window at f/2.8 with both the Nikkor and the Yashica.
They perform very similar in the center, but I would say the Yashica has actually a slight edge over the Nikkor in the corners.

comparisoninfinitywideopen by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Where's the Takumar? Smile


In my collection Very Happy ( the 1:1 one Very Happy )


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be intersting to test if those differences are due to field curvature.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This was shot at infinity (F8 ) with the Vivitar (early Panagor version of the Komine so sold as F/3.0) Not scientific of course

The pond F8 by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph2 wrote:
It would be intersting to test if those differences are due to field curvature.


No, in this case they are not, because I focused separately at the target in the corner (in the close focus test). So what it really shows is the max a lens can resolve in the corner.

I don’t do field curvature tests at close distance, because the chance of error is too big.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
memetph2 wrote:
It would be intersting to test if those differences are due to field curvature.


No, in this case they are not, because I focused separately at the target in the corner (in the close focus test). So what it really shows is the max a lens can resolve in the corner.

I don’t do field curvature tests at close distance, because the chance of error is too big.

Thx .
I asked because I use a Super Takumar f4 which is supposed to have a flat field in order to use it for reproduction.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph2 wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
memetph2 wrote:
It would be intersting to test if those differences are due to field curvature.


No, in this case they are not, because I focused separately at the target in the corner (in the close focus test). So what it really shows is the max a lens can resolve in the corner.

I don’t do field curvature tests at close distance, because the chance of error is too big.

Thx .
I asked because I use a Super Takumar f4 which is supposed to have a flat field in order to use it for reproduction.


Yes, it should be the case with most macro lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Comparison of 4 short macro lenses. Magnification 1:5.
Then, corner comparisons (f/2.5/2.8/4/5.6/Cool
...
Surprise! The Canon and Nikkor can't compete with the Vivitar and Yashica in this regard.


Ultrapix wrote:
Surprising, indeed

Really? Still surprising? I have a few 1st gen Canon AF lenses here (not the 2.5/50 Macro, though), and they are quiet a bit worse than the corresponding 1st gen MinAF lenses. 4/70-210 comes to my mind.

MF Nikkors are famous. Are they better than than the corresponding Minolta / Canon / Konica lenses? In rare cases: yes (AiS 2.8/180mm ED, for instance). Usually they aren't better, and quite often they are (slightly) worse.



S


OK, but how many more examples can you give me of a Vivitar that beats both Nikon and Canon with ease? Also, I remember tests at the time of the two Vivitar macro 55s and 90s, and they did not receive glowing comments. I myself used the 55 for a few tests, and perhaps because of the difficulty of focusing at longer distances due to the over-compressed excursion of the focus ring, I didn't like it too much and ended up getting the Micro 55 2.8. These trials make me rethink my old convictions, and yes, they surprise me. The Yashica I knew was excellent, I had given one to a friend and he does excellent things with it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could be quite a bit of sample variation with the Vivitar.
There are plenty of mixed reviews around.

At the time I bought mine, the Vivitar's description was "Flat Field" from the seller.
This was at a time when accurate descriptions meant a lot.

I didn't rigorously test my copy.
There was a bit of fall off and bbl distortion towards the edges, but it took a great deal of magnification to find it.

As far as the Nikkor 55 micro goes, all were flat field until the 55mm P.C. 3.5 was discontinued.
With the new computation for the A/I variant, the Flat Field designation was dropped.
At infinity, my nikkor 55 3.5 micro P.C. barrel distorts a bit towards the edges.
It is noticeable, if one is looking for it.
It is by no means glaring.
It is difficult at times to be fair to these old lenses.
For me, expectations can be a bit high at times.
It does pay to work with a lens a bit to find out where it performs best...

-D.S.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3