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

Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm vs Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:05 pm    Post subject: Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm vs Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm Reply with quote
Recently I got my second sample of the Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm (the first one was given to a friend some 30 years ago). It's a pretty rare lens, and the sample I bought a few days ago may even be the same I owned 30 years ago - it's serial (SN 12348) reminds me of something, but I'm not completely sure ...

I was quite curious about the performance of the "new" Sekor EF (which in fact does look like new), and the very first images taken at f2.8 were quite a surprise. I probably have tested / compared >50 normal lenses, and it was immediately clear that the Sekor EF was among the top "vintage" normal lenses.

During the last days I have compared the Sekor E 1.4/50mm with several other lenses I know to perform well, such as the Minolta MD-III 1.4/50mm and the Zeiss Planar CY 1.4/50mm. Both the Planar as well as the Minolta are among the best vintage 50mm lenses I know, and their overall performance is pretty comparable.

But enough said, let's look at the images now (CLICK TWICE TO GET FULL RESOLUTION):



While both lenses at f1.4 do struggle, the Mamyia has more detail. At f2 the differences become pretty obvious, and so they are at f2.8.
At f2.8 the Mamiya is perfectly usable for landscape images, something I've never seen before with any vintage normal lens!

The Zeiss needs to be stopped down to f4.5 to get a similarly clear and clean image, and most 1.4/50mm would require f5.6 for the same performance. That is pretty amazing and confirms the excellent reputation of other Mamiya normal lenses such as the Sekor Auto 1.8/55mm or the Sekor Auto 2/50mm.

Interestingly, at f8 the Zeiss is better than the Mamiya: It's color correction now is simply perfect, while the Mamiya has faint amounts of lateral CAs.

On the other hand, the lens barrel of the Zeiss feels sturdier than the one of the Mamiya. The Zeiss barrel is completely made of metal; the Mamyia EF barrel has its aperture ring and focusing grip made out of plastic. Nevertheless, the important parts of the Mamiya are made from metal as well. In addition its aperture lever allows for a much more precise control of the aperture than the Zeiss.

To make it short - the Sekor EF 1.4/50mm is another excellent Mamiya lens, along with the Sekor A 4/120mm Macro and the Sekor C lenses C 4/210mm and 5.6/300mm. They are among the very best vintage lenses one can get in the said focal length.

S


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pretty impressive. I think center performance of the Mamiya at wider apertures is also pretty good. It seems better than other f/1.4’s I’ve owned.



100% crop (Sony A7Rii) of the above picture (f/1.4)



PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the EF just shines, despite the plastic feeling and weird mount/adapter. Now, be careful with straight light....


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Absolutley pointless test that tells us nothing about the character or capabilities of the lenses as image making tools.

You might have tested more than 50 vintage 50mm lenses but you clearly have no idea how to assess their qualities or character.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Stephan. From previous pictures I've taken the image looks better in the far corners than a bit less into the periphery. Can you confirm that, or do you have sharp image all over the frame at f/2.8?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
@Stephan. From previous pictures I've taken the image looks better in the far corners than a bit less into the periphery. Can you confirm that, or do you have sharp image all over the frame at f/2.8?


It's difficult to see on the pictures I've taken since there's mostly grassland in the "periphery". I would have to take additional images with "our" house e. g. at the image border (not in the corner).

That said, the Mamiya seems to have more color fringing at f1.4 than the Zeiss, and less so than the Zeiss at f2 ... otherwise both lenses seem to perform similarly at 12-16mm distance from the center.

I'll have to check that tomorrow!

S


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I appreciate your efforts and find these very helpful. Apparently not all do. If you want to know the specifics about a lens these small snippets of information can be invaluable. Ignore the useless criticism of some.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
@Stephan. From previous pictures I've taken the image looks better in the far corners than a bit less into the periphery. Can you confirm that, or do you have sharp image all over the frame at f/2.8?


It would be interesting if there was a mid-field dip. Pretty common with many lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
I appreciate your efforts and find these very helpful. Apparently not all do. If you want to know the specifics about a lens these small snippets of information can be invaluable. Ignore the useless criticism of some.

I've tried many times convincing Ian to publish meaningful images/comparisons which clarify his point of view, but ... Personally I would appreciate such information very much.


cbass wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
@Stephan. From previous pictures I've taken the image looks better in the far corners than a bit less into the periphery. Can you confirm that, or do you have sharp image all over the frame at f/2.8?


It would be interesting if there was a mid-field dip. Pretty common with many lenses.


I can't see much of a "dip" - today I took a series of images at f2.8 with the Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm (100% crops from 24 MP FF images again, showing center, 1/3 out, 2/3 out and corner):



Compared to other 1.4/50mm lenses, already at f2.8 the image quality seems to be remarkably uniform over the entire full frame image. It certainly would be sufficient e. g. for printing large calendars (40x60cm / 16x24 inch), something I do with my images (see e. g. www.artaphot.ch/kalender) ...

S

Last edited by stevemark on Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:41 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They look pretty similar to me but the Mamiya clears up faster. No telling if it is a difference in design or copy variation. Stopping down seems to affect white balance with the Zeiss. The Mamiya has a bit of red/orange fringing but barely noticeable even at 100%.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
... No telling if it is a difference in design or copy variation.


From checking ten Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses as well as seven Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm lenses and a dozen Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm zooms I know that there are nearly no visible "copy variation" differences in Minolta lenses. I would assume the same for Zeiss, but I haven't tested it myself.

Mamiya E is a bit different; testing ten Sekor E 3.5/135mm did show some copy variation; therefore it might well be that another E/EF 1.4/50mm is not as good as mine.

S


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing your findings!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

From checking ten Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses as well as seven Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm lenses and a dozen Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm zooms I know that there are nearly no visible "copy variation" differences in Minolta lenses. I would assume the same for Zeiss, but I haven't tested it myself.


I am skeptical of this claim. Even today on high dollar $2000 lenses you can find sample variation. Furthermore, most of these lenses are at the age that at some point a CLA could introduce errors and issues even if no sample variation came out of the factory, which again I doubt. I also have to assume that at some point just from use there would be wear, which could also introduce issues.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You test 50mm focal length lenses on objects a mile away?
How do you test a 500mm? Portraits?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In fact, there are some nice samples of 250 and maybe 500mm portraits shots around here, maybe rokkor RF
Besides, the Sony 55mm 1.8 it's famous to be a very sharp for landscapes , including extreme corners , so ,that means 50mm FL ,just like all the others , are very handy not for portraits. I had a day one lens only, and the septon turned out to be and interesting lens even for landscapes in that particular case (f11). I wouldn't dare to compare it to others by no means .


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
You test 50mm focal length lenses on objects a mile away?
How do you test a 500mm? Portraits?


As far as I know, older lenses have been corrected for infinity since the usual lens tests have been conducted with the aid of MTF benches which measure the MTF at infinity. Nowadays, I guess most lens designers correct their lenses for closer distances (1:50 or 1 :100) since most "modern" test procdures like DxO Image Analyzer or Imatest uses test charts to evaluate lenses. I guess Stephan tests his tele lenses at close to infinity distances as well Wink

Last edited by Alsatian2017 on Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
stevemark wrote:

From checking ten Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses as well as seven Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm lenses and a dozen Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm zooms I know that there are nearly no visible "copy variation" differences in Minolta lenses. I would assume the same for Zeiss, but I haven't tested it myself.


I am skeptical of this claim. Even today on high dollar $2000 lenses you can find sample variation. Furthermore, most of these lenses are at the age that at some point a CLA could introduce errors and issues even if no sample variation came out of the factory, which again I doubt. I also have to assume that at some point just from use there would be wear, which could also introduce issues.


Stephan only buys lenses used by Swiss photographers which certainly helps him to affirm the lack of sample variation Smile

What I found with my lenses is that sample variation is more frequent with third party lens makers, especially with second tier ones like Makina who work with higher tolerances to save money (in the Makinon 135 mm lens, for instance, several elements are secured with a single retaining ring and thus the elements often "rattle" within the barrel...). Minolta and most other camera brands (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus, Pentax) usually had tight tolerances for the lens barrels and the fittings of the lenses which helps to assure low sample variation. Sometimes, retaining rings or screws tend to losen after a few years or decades and the different elements start to move but intelligent CLA should fix these problems very quickly and easily.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
stevemark wrote:

From checking ten Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses as well as seven Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm lenses and a dozen Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm zooms I know that there are nearly no visible "copy variation" differences in Minolta lenses. I would assume the same for Zeiss, but I haven't tested it myself.


I am skeptical of this claim. Even today on high dollar $2000 lenses you can find sample variation.

Yes, sure, I do see sample variation on newer zoom lenses. Sample variation e. g. on the Zeiss ZA 2.8/16-35mm (three samples) or the ZA 2.8/24-70mm I/II (three samples) is visible on 24 MP FF (pixel peeping mode). The Sony 2.8/70-200mm G had a higher-than usual return rate (guarantee issues) than other Sony / Zeiss lenses, precisely because of sample variation. Same is true e. g. for the Canon EF 2.8/70-200mm L II. These lenses, especially those with integrated image stabilizers, are very complicated systems with lots of moving parts.

An MF lens from the early 1980s though usually consists of just one (fixed) lens block and a focusing mechanism. If the focusing mechanism was free from cams (it ususally was), it obviously could be made without visible sample variation. At least that's what I see on 24 MP FF.


cbass wrote:
Furthermore, most of these lenses are at the age that at some point a CLA could introduce errors and issues even if no sample variation came out of the factory, which again I doubt. I also have to assume that at some point just from use there would be wear, which could also introduce issues.

Most lenses I get are looking like new. As I said earlier, I only buy from within Switzerland, and here's a large pool of nice stuff which never had been (mis-)used professionally. These lenses didn't get much wear-and-tear, and they never were serviced, either. If something was seriously wrong with QC, it usually would have been exchanged by the manufacturers' representative, not just serviced. I'm aware of entire waste containers full of MinAF 4/70-210mm lenses thrown away by Minolta Switzerland. Exchanging a faulty lens was cheaper than repairing it.

What happened to some lenses later - especially after the manufacturers were ceasing their repairing service, and especially in areas where a lens was much too valuable to simply be thrown away - is another question, of course. So we both might be right to some extent.


Himself wrote:
You test 50mm focal length lenses on objects a mile away?
How do you test a 500mm? Portraits?

I test all lenses at "infinity". This has a very simply reason: the horizon is always at infinity, which means the corners and the image center are precisely at the same distance. If I would use a test chart at a finite distance, I never would be sure whether it is really parallel to the sensor ...

Alsatian2017 wrote:
Stephan only buys lenses used by Swiss photographers

Yep, true. Not because of sample variation issues, but simply because there's much more nice stuff available here than I can possibly ever buy ... and if there is (very rarely) an issue, I easily and personally can get in touch with the seller (I often do anyway, just because it's fun).

Alsatian2017 wrote:
What I found with my lenses is that sample variation is more frequent with third party lens makers, especially with second tier ones like Makina who work with higher tolerances to save money (in the Makinon 135 mm lens, for instance, several elements are secured with a single retaining ring and thus the elements often "rattle" within the barrel...).

I have clearly seen this with Mamiya Sekor E lenses (1.7/50mm and 3.5/135mm, about ten samples each). I strongly suspect it for some Tokina lenses (e. g. 3.5-4.3/35-105mm which seems to have he same optical formula as the Minolta MD 3.5-4.5/35-105mm, despite the nominally different f-values).

S


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the biggest deviations in optical performance in Mamiya E(F) evolved over the years, not so much bad quality control in the factory.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I think the biggest deviations in optical performance in Mamiya E(F) evolved over the years, not so much bad quality control in the factory.


Not sure about that.

Somewhere in the history section of the Nikon website you can find information about quality control of the "M" company, which of course was Mamiya. Nikon was not happy about it in the 1960s.

In addition the Z-series SLRs as well as the Sekor E lenses were really cheap. And I mean really cheap. As far as I remember, around 1981 the Minolta X-300 body alone (the cheapest SLR of Minolta, which in turn was the most competitive of the Canon/Nikon/Minolta triad) was more expensive than the Mamiya ZE set including Sekor E 3.5/28, 1.7/50 and 3.5/135!!

I'm sure they (Mamiya) couldn't pay too much attention to quality control of the Sekor E lenses. I'm pretty sure though that earlier (and more expensive) lenses such as the Sekor ES and CS had better QC, let alone the professional lenses for the Mamiya 645, the RB67 and the RZ 67.

S


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
I think the biggest deviations in optical performance in Mamiya E(F) evolved over the years, not so much bad quality control in the factory.


In addition the Z-series SLRs as well as the Sekor E lenses were really cheap. And I mean really cheap. As far as I remember, around 1981 the Minolta X-300 body alone (the cheapest SLR of Minolta, which in turn was the most competitive of the Canon/Nikon/Minolta triad) was more expensive than the Mamiya ZE set including Sekor E 3.5/28, 1.7/50 and 3.5/135!!


I can confirm the Sekor E lenses are really cheap. I have a Mamiya 50mm f/2 that I received for free and although optically it is pretty good the build quality is very plastic and crappy.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
I think the biggest deviations in optical performance in Mamiya E(F) evolved over the years, not so much bad quality control in the factory.


In addition the Z-series SLRs as well as the Sekor E lenses were really cheap. And I mean really cheap. As far as I remember, around 1981 the Minolta X-300 body alone (the cheapest SLR of Minolta, which in turn was the most competitive of the Canon/Nikon/Minolta triad) was more expensive than the Mamiya ZE set including Sekor E 3.5/28, 1.7/50 and 3.5/135!!


I can confirm the Sekor E lenses are really cheap. I have a Mamiya 50mm f/2 that I received for free and although optically it is pretty good the build quality is very plastic and crappy.


Well,it depends on the lenses. While most fixed focal length lenses between 28 and 135mm were built with a lot of plastic parts, the zoom lenses (35-70 mm, 28-50mm and 80-200 mm) were mainly built with metal parts. Some magazine testers concluded at the time (1981), that users of Z cameras should rather buy Osawa lenses to get better mechanical feel (!!!) but wrote as well that Mamiya E and EF lenses were of excellent image quality, on par with more prestigious makers lenses.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
I think the biggest deviations in optical performance in Mamiya E(F) evolved over the years, not so much bad quality control in the factory.


Not sure about that.

Somewhere in the history section of the Nikon website you can find information about quality control of the "M" company, which of course was Mamiya. Nikon was not happy about it in the 1960s.

In addition the Z-series SLRs as well as the Sekor E lenses were really cheap. And I mean really cheap. As far as I remember, around 1981 the Minolta X-300 body alone (the cheapest SLR of Minolta, which in turn was the most competitive of the Canon/Nikon/Minolta triad) was more expensive than the Mamiya ZE set including Sekor E 3.5/28, 1.7/50 and 3.5/135!!

I'm sure they (Mamiya) couldn't pay too much attention to quality control of the Sekor E lenses. I'm pretty sure though that earlier (and more expensive) lenses such as the Sekor ES and CS had better QC, let alone the professional lenses for the Mamiya 645, the RB67 and the RZ 67.

S


The SX and CS lenses that I have are of a good mechanical quality and the optical quality is excellent. Only the CS 135mm 2.8 has too much lateral CA. The M-S E 50mm 2.0 that I got for 1 Euro is not bad in IQ while the construction is similar to the last MD versions of Minolta (MD III 135mm 3.5). At least I can unscrew the rear element of the Mamiya and clean it, the MDs lens groups are often sealed in plastic.

Rough times ahead for Mamiya when the Z cameras were in production, the Osawa bankruptcy became a big scandal in Japan.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like your comparisons.
They seem to have a lot more control to them than the un-scientific stuff I do for myself.

Color control as shown in the last few frames is an every day reality for me.
I find the color differences between older and newer variants from the same maker interesting.
I gravitate to the colors of the older lenses for some reason- even if they are not all that accurate- again, a simple matter of personal taste.

-D.S.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1