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 CS & E lenses on digital full frame?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

I compared the Mamiya Sekor CS 135mm 2.8 with the Canon FD 135mm 2.5 and the Minolta MD III 135mm 3.5.
All three on an A7RII, all converted to EF mounts and used on a MC-11 adapter. The last two I like but the M-S shows more CA and the worst defect, which makes it unusable for me, is the purple fringing. Editing that out in capture one with different tools does not make the image better. I was thinking of decentered elements too but given your test I think the CS 135mm is just not up to the competition. Pity as it is about the lightest 135mm 2.8 available.

Best regards, Ernst


I can check these three lenses specifically, if you want. The CS and E 2.8/135mm lenses certainly have more CAs than the others, but i found removing lateral and longitudinal CAs (=purple fringing) quite easy, using Photoshop ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

I compared the Mamiya Sekor CS 135mm 2.8 with the Canon FD 135mm 2.5 and the Minolta MD III 135mm 3.5.
All three on an A7RII, all converted to EF mounts and used on a MC-11 adapter. The last two I like but the M-S shows more CA and the worst defect, which makes it unusable for me, is the purple fringing. Editing that out in capture one with different tools does not make the image better. I was thinking of decentered elements too but given your test I think the CS 135mm is just not up to the competition. Pity as it is about the lightest 135mm 2.8 available.

Best regards, Ernst


I can check these three lenses specifically, if you want. The CS and E 2.8/135mm lenses certainly have more CAs than the others, but i found removing lateral and longitudinal CAs (=purple fringing) quite easy, using Photoshop ...

Stephan


Retouching lateral CAs is working well in Capture One, usually the RGB separations are scaled to one another to get rid of that. Purple fringing can have more causes than just longitudinal CA, flare can have a bad influence and shorter wavelengths into UV as well. The way Capture One suppresses it is by substituting the purple with the two contrasting colors that created it. Quite nifty I think. I think Capture One is a bit too selective on what purple represents purple fringing and by that is less effective on the M-S lens images. If it is not enough I select the purple and desaturate that purple in color correction, that is the common way to make it less visible. One way or another it is easier with the other 135mm lenses than with the M-S one. I have tried an UV filter on the lens, not a very strong one and it did not change anything. Flare could be what makes it worse. In the Minolta MD III 135mm 3.5 I see quite defined purple lines at the contrast edges where the M-S lens has purple flames going into the darker parts. I have made the element edges black with a felt pen (there was nothing on them) but little has changed.

Ernst Dinkla


PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have added two 100% crops from the same image, taken with the Mamiya Sekor E 2.8/135mm@ f2.8 (wide open).
They show the extreme corner of the 24 MP A7II image.

Image A is the crop from the A7II JPG, showing both lateral and longitudinal CAs (the latter often called "purple fringing").




Image B shows the same crop, but converted with Photoshop, using the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" button AND using the "Defringe" function ("Purple Amount" set to "5", and "Purple Hue" set to "30/70".



Image C - for reference - shows the results using the Minolta / Sony 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM @ 135mm f5.6. This is a photosoph conversion of the RAW data s well, but no CA correction and no defringing was applied. It show the excellent apochromatic correction if the lens:


Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well maybe Capture One sets a limit on what can be compensated of purple fringing directly and maybe that is not a bad idea either. If I use color correction to reduce the remaining purple then the tree branches become grey in the worst parts and the structure is lost. It is not to boast but prints up to a meter wide show this and that is not what I want. I will start my Photoshop CC to check whether it does a better job to solve this issue but I like to stay within CO. I have no complaints at all about the other M-S vintage lenses, the CS 35mm 2.8 and the SX 55mm 1.8 are used frequently these days. Could be I have a Monday production lens and the other ones are better. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose ...

Thank you for the effort to show all this


PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Recalling this thread, have you ever used/tested the Mamiya-Sekor E 135mm 3.5 ? I guess they are rare. I have an old magazine test that made me curious. It belongs to the lightest 135mm lenses, 10 grams lighter than my Mamiya Sekor CS 135mm 2.8, 13 grams heavier than my Minolta MD III 135mm 3.5. Image quality and weight about the same as the Fujinon EBC X T 135mm 3.5. There is also an old magazine test of that lens. Both tests look good but with slightly different MTF shifts going towards smaller stops.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
Recalling this thread, have you ever used/tested the Mamiya-Sekor E 135mm 3.5 ? I guess they are rare. I have an old magazine test that made me curious. It belongs to the lightest 135mm lenses, 10 grams lighter than my Mamiya Sekor CS 135mm 2.8, 13 grams heavier than my Minolta MD III 135mm 3.5. Image quality and weight about the same as the Fujinon EBC X T 135mm 3.5. There is also an old magazine test of that lens. Both tests look good but with slightly different MTF shifts going towards smaller stops.


Yes, I did so, but only "on the fly", not seriously. As far as I remember it wasn't outstanding, certainly less capable than the tiny MD-III 3.5/135mm. I can re-test and give some additional information if you want.

S


EDIT: here's the result of a quick test - Mamiya Sekor E 2.8/135mm vs Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/135mm vs Minolta MD-II 3.5/135mm.



Weather condidions were far from ideal, therefore the contrast here is rather low. But sufficient to give a first impression ...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the effort. Not what I expected. The old magazine test of the 3.5 shows something else compared to the 2.8. I do not have a similar test result for the Minolta MD 3.5 but know its quality in practice, version III in my case.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is of the extreme corner again. Escaped me at that moment. That fits the magazine test better. The 3.5 stays behind there.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
This is of the extreme corner again. Escaped me at that moment.

Yep. As usual, that's where you can the differences bewen the lenses, at least on 24 MP FF.


Ernst Dinkla wrote:

That fits the magazine test better. The 3.5 stays behind there.

I have quite a few of those Sekor E 3.5/135mm. I may check tomorrow whether they behave similarly.

S


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You really are wasting people's time with this extreme corner nonsense.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You really are wasting people's time with this extreme corner nonsense.


hair-splitting aside, i sort of accidentally got both an NC1000 w/ CS 50mm/f1.4 and a ZE with 50mm f/2 within a few days of each other ...the CS 50mm, as predicted, doesn't lock to the adapter mount making it rather frustrating to use, and i didn't find the lens's character compelling enough to use regularly. the ZE 50mm however works nicely with the adapter, and allows full aperture control via the adapter. results were, to my eye, comparable to other 50mm kit lenses of the era - good enough, but not special... it does look at home on an a7ii tho.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You really are wasting people's time with this extreme corner nonsense.


[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]
Pancolart wrote:
At F11 you can replace any lens with compact camera (telephone lately) without noticeable difference. Sorry had to say it.


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Not true. There are many factors to consider, but clear differences are discernable.


Factors as extreme corners sharpness?


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You really are wasting people's time with this extreme corner nonsense.


Not my time though. I know where to use a lens that falls off to the edges, I know where to use a lens that holds up to the corners. Problem is that too many fall in the first category.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You really are wasting people's time with this extreme corner nonsense.


Not my time though. I know where to use a lens that falls off to the edges, I know where to use a lens that holds up to the corners. Problem is that too many fall in the first category.



+1


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my opinion, testing a lens at the corners is perfectly valid because corner performance is perhaps what most visibly separates a really good lens from a mediocre one.

Manufacturers spend immense resources to improve performance at corners of each lens they manufacture.

If corner performance were not important, a lens would be much smaller, lighter, cheaper and easier to design.

Lens designers, especially the less capable, would love if most photographers didn't demand lenses that perform well in the corners.

Those who do not need lenses with good performance at corners can be considered lucky because almost any lens will satisfy their needs.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I went to the attic, getting out the large box with Mamyia Sekor E stuff. Usually I don't buy several samples of the same lens,
but some years ago I was able to pick up an entire Mamiya Sekor E collection for little money, and so I ended up not only with
several ZE, ZE-2, ZE-X, and ZM cameras, but also with lots of lenses.

So, here the sample variation of eight Mamyia Sekor E 3.57135mm lenses. Here are my observations:

1) All these lenses are without any visible damage, and most look pristine.
2) Two of these lenses (#13136 and #32790) clearly have a longer focal length than the other six lenses
3) Wide open, all lenses have an excellent performance; no differences can be seen
4) One of the lenses (#34871) has clearly a reduced corner performance
5) Another lens (#20754) has a slightly reduced corner performance

CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION!



Unfortunately, yesterday I had tested just that one sample (#34871) with a reduced corner performance ... but such is life!

An additional remark: I rarely have the ability to test many samples of the same lens. We know from the MTF measurings of Roger
Cicala (lensrentals.com) that all lenses have sample variation, but that not all these sample variations are visible. Roger Cicala has
shown, that even modern high-performance zooms can have visible deviations from their "standard performance". I have seen such
problems e. g. with the Minolta / Sony AF 2.8/70-200mm G SSM, and Roger Cicala reports similar stories from the correspondiong Canon EF zoom.

Nevertheless, I have tested ...
1) Ten samples of the Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm (on 24 MP FF no sample variation visible),
2) Ten samples of the Minolta MD-III 3.5/35-70mm lenses (one sample with slightly lower corner performance, other nine samples indistinguishable)
3) Seven samples of the Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm (all samples indistinguishable)

On the other hand, I have tested 2-3 samples each of several Konica AR zooms from the 1970s, often with wildly different performance.

That much for today; maybe I'll test a sample of eight Mamyia 3.8/80-200mm zooms next week.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephan, thank you for all the work done.

The Mamiya QC for this lens seems to have been mediocre. The CS range of lenses did not have a 135mm 3.5, I guess reintroduced in the E/EF range it was an inexpensive lens and QC not the first thing to pay attention to. The optical design must have been quite good given the magazine test and your best results with the lens.
Interesting to see that flare is measured lower than in the Fuji QBC test. Part of the M-S 135mm 3.5 image quality is probably related to smaller elements and by that less CA etc from the outer edges of the elements, lower flare possibly too. Signs for that: vignetting gone at 5.6, actual F-stop and T-stop having higher numbers than the Fuji QBC as well. Even the M-S 2.8 has vignetting up to f/4.5 where the Fuji 3.5 shows f/4.0. Still a good approach for landscape lenses (and marketing Wink
Another magazine review:



It would have been nice if it was available as a Mamiya-Sekor CS lens, I like to convert them to Canon EF mount lenses + a chip added. I could design a 3D printed adapter to Sony FE mount for it that can actuate the M-S E/EF aperture. First I have to find one more locally here, not that easy it seems.

Again thank you for the effort,


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:01 pm    Post subject: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
First of all: I do not have one. To check what the Herron site mentions about the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 a search was done for any images made with that lens and any review of it. There is little found on that subject. Images are more often scans of film, not much digital to find.

Herron writes "The performance of this lens is pretty standard for a 28mm lens from a reputable manufacturer such as Mamiya. Sharpness in the center and contrast are very good. Corner sharpness could be a little bit better when stopped down. Nothing really damaging -- or very exciting, but very usable. However, while relatively good overall, it doesn't seem to perform quite as well as the 21mm CS lens."

This will be a film IQ based opinion too I think.

The lens is an 8 element 7 group design. The same optical design is used in the later E/EF range for the Mamiya Z 35mm camera models. Sears labeled versions exist too. The Rolleinar HFT 28mm 2.8 has that 8 element 7 group design as well.



I did a search for all the lenses mentioned here and I am not much wiser. Old magazine tests seem not to exist. A few samples suggest that it is not as standard in IQ as mentioned so far.

The lack of good adapters for the CS version might be a reason (aperture control) but the E/EF and the Rolleinar at least had a working adapter to a digital camera. I see some samples of the last made with a Canon 5D but nothing like a Sony A7 used. https://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=12248&page=2

Someone using one of these lenses on an FF digital camera?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
First of all: I do not have one. To check what the Herron site mentions about the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 a search was done for any images made with that lens and any review of it. There is little found on that subject. Images are more often scans of film, not much digital to find.

Herron writes "The performance of this lens is pretty standard for a 28mm lens from a reputable manufacturer such as Mamiya. Sharpness in the center and contrast are very good. Corner sharpness could be a little bit better when stopped down. Nothing really damaging -- or very exciting, but very usable. However, while relatively good overall, it doesn't seem to perform quite as well as the 21mm CS lens."

This will be a film IQ based opinion too I think.

The lens is an 8 element 7 group design. The same optical design is used in the later E/EF range for the Mamiya Z 35mm camera models. Sears labeled versions exist too. The Rolleinar HFT 28mm 2.8 has that 8 element 7 group design as well.

I did a search for all the lenses mentioned here and I am not much wiser. Old magazine tests seem not to exist. A few samples suggest that it is not as standard in IQ as mentioned so far.

Someone using one of these lenses on an FF digital camera?


I have only one sample of the Sekor E 2.8/28mm, and it is abysmal. It looks perfectly new from outside, but the performance is terrible. I got it for free from a well known Swiss photo dealer when he - at the age of 80+ - slowly sold off all the remaining stff in his shop. The lens had been lying around for years, and probably it was a "dud" somebody had returned.

I have, however, a few samples of the CS 2.8/28mm. When I got my Mamiya Sekor E => Sony E adapter, I quickly made a few shots with the CS 2.8/28mm @ f2.8. They were quite good, and certainly much much better than those taken with my (defunct) Sekor E 2.8/28mm. I also did a few improvised images stopped down, and it seems that the CS 2.8/28mm might be as good or even better than e. g. the Minolta MC/MD 2.8/28mm [7L] or the Nikkor Ai 2.8/28mm. I'm quite busy right now with other projects, but I may find the time to run a quick "landscape" comparison between the lenses mentioned above. That should give us a pretty good first impression of the quality of the CS 2.8/28mm.

When it comes to the CS 2.8/21mm - a lens I found only recently after 35 years of seeking -, it certainly isn't as good as the CS 2.8/28mm. Preliminary tests are indicating that the CS 2.8/21 has quite soft/unsharp corners at f2.8. Stopping down to f11 results in pretty sharp images over the entire field. That means the Mamiya CS 2.8/21mm is way better than the Olympus Zuiko 3.5/21mm, but not as good as e. g. the Rokkor 2.8/21mm. That seems reasonable also from a technical standpoint: The Oly is extremely small, and consist of only seven lenses. It would be a miracle if the Oly engineers would have been able to manufacture an excellent lens under these circumstances. The Mamiya is also really small, and quite fast. The Minolta is a real behemoth compared to the Oly and the Mamiya. No wonder it performs better ...

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
First of all: I do not have one. To check what the Herron site mentions about the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 a search was done for any images made with that lens and any review of it. There is little found on that subject. Images are more often scans of film, not much digital to find.

Herron writes "The performance of this lens is pretty standard for a 28mm lens from a reputable manufacturer such as Mamiya. Sharpness in the center and contrast are very good. Corner sharpness could be a little bit better when stopped down. Nothing really damaging -- or very exciting, but very usable. However, while relatively good overall, it doesn't seem to perform quite as well as the 21mm CS lens."

This will be a film IQ based opinion too I think.

The lens is an 8 element 7 group design. The same optical design is used in the later E/EF range for the Mamiya Z 35mm camera models. Sears labeled versions exist too. The Rolleinar HFT 28mm 2.8 has that 8 element 7 group design as well.

I did a search for all the lenses mentioned here and I am not much wiser. Old magazine tests seem not to exist. A few samples suggest that it is not as standard in IQ as mentioned so far.

Someone using one of these lenses on an FF digital camera?


I have only one sample of the Sekor E 2.8/28mm, and it is abysmal. It looks perfectly new from outside, but the performance is terrible. I got it for free from a well known Swiss photo dealer when he - at the age of 80+ - slowly sold off all the remaining stff in his shop. The lens had been lying around for years, and probably it was a "dud" somebody had returned.

I have, however, a few samples of the CS 2.8/28mm. When I got my Mamiya Sekor E => Sony E adapter, I quickly made a few shots with the CS 2.8/28mm @ f2.8. They were quite good, and certainly much much better than those taken with my (defunct) Sekor E 2.8/28mm. I also did a few improvised images stopped down, and it seems that the CS 2.8/28mm might be as good or even better than e. g. the Minolta MC/MD 2.8/28mm [7L] or the Nikkor Ai 2.8/28mm. I'm quite busy right now with other projects, but I may find the time to run a quick "landscape" comparison between the lenses mentioned above. That should give us a pretty good first impression of the quality of the CS 2.8/28mm.

When it comes to the CS 2.8/21mm - a lens I found only recently after 35 years of seeking -, it certainly isn't as good as the CS 2.8/28mm. Preliminary tests are indicating that the CS 2.8/21 has quite soft/unsharp corners at f2.8. Stopping down to f11 results in pretty sharp images over the entire field. That means the Mamiya CS 2.8/21mm is way better than the Olympus Zuiko 3.5/21mm, but not as good as e. g. the Rokkor 2.8/21mm. That seems reasonable also from a technical standpoint: The Oly is extremely small, and consist of only seven lenses. It would be a miracle if the Oly engineers would have been able to manufacture an excellent lens under these circumstances. The Mamiya is also really small, and quite fast. The Minolta is a real behemoth compared to the Oly and the Mamiya. No wonder it performs better ...

S


Good to read this. I keep an eye on the M-S CS 28mm 2.8 ads then. It intrigued me that it has 8 elements for an 28mm 2.8 where the Distagon 2.8 has 7 and the 2.0 has 9 elements. At least M-S tried hard one would think.
More projects here too so take your time for whatever has to be done first.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

Good to read this. I keep an eye on the M-S CS 28mm 2.8 ads then. It intrigued me that it has 8 elements for an 28mm 2.8 where the Distagon 2.8 has 7 and the 2.0 has 9 elements. At least M-S tried hard one would think.
More projects here too so take your time for whatever has to be done first.


I have quite a lot of Mamiya Sekor E (and to some extent also CS) stuff laying around here. You can get tested items for what I paid for them, usually about EUR 10.-- per lens (or camera). PM me if you are interested, and write me what you are looking for.

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

Good to read this. I keep an eye on the M-S CS 28mm 2.8 ads then. It intrigued me that it has 8 elements for an 28mm 2.8 where the Distagon 2.8 has 7 and the 2.0 has 9 elements. At least M-S tried hard one would think.
More projects here too so take your time for whatever has to be done first.


I have quite a lot of Mamiya Sekor E (and to some extent also CS) stuff laying around here. You can get tested items for what I paid for them, usually about EUR 10.-- per lens (or camera). PM me if you are interested, and write me what you are looking for.

S


A very nice offer. In will PM you.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

I am most curious about the two samples of the 135mm 2.8 you have.


I've been playing around with a few nice 2.8/135mm (and a few equally nice zooms), comparing them in the infinity range at f2.8, f4, f5.6 and f11 using my 24MP FF A7II.

Canon nFD 2.8/135mm
Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm
Mamyia Sekor SX 2.8/135mm
Mamiya Sekor E 2.8/135mm
Minolta Rokkor MC 2.8/135mm [4/4]
Topcon Topcor RE 3.5/135mm
Zeiss Sonnar CY 2.8/135mm

The Canon is among the best - very sharp, but slightly more lateral CAs than the Zeiss.
The Konica, wide open, is a bit disappointing and not as sharp as most other lenses, but at f5.6 it looks very good
The Mamiya Sekor SX, surprisingly, at f2.8 is nearly as good as the Zeiss.
The Mamiya Sekor E has also very good corner resolution, but stronger lateral CAs than any other lens mentioned above. Easy to correct in PP, then the images are nearly perfect even at f2.8
In the corners, the Rokkor is slighty less sharp than the Zeiss or the Mamiya lenses, but at f2.8 it has less CAs than the Mamiya E lens. Looks a bit like a de-centered sample, bu i've tested two copies; they both have the same look.
The Topcor can't impress me - the center is good, of course, but there's quite some field curvature, at f3.5 leading to completely unsharp corners and even in the field.
The Zeiss, over all, has the best image quality of these primes. Very good corners, good contrast, and relatively little CAs.

After that, i did a few zooms at f=135mm:

Minolta MD-III 4/70-210mm
Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L
Nikkor AiS AF 2.8/80-200mm
Minolta / Sony AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM

Surprisingly, the MD 4/70-210mm wide open is as good or even better than the Zeiss at f2.8. If we stop down the Zeiss to f4, the Zeiss may be slightly better.
The Canon 80-200 L has no CAs at all, but at f4 corner details clearly are missing. Needs to be stopped down to f8 - f11 if you want to get the same detail resolution as with the MD 4/70-210.
The Nikkor is slightly disappointing (decentered), but it has less CAs than any of the primes tested above.
Finally the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200 APO G (the latest contruction tested here) comes with best image quality of all the lenses tested here: No CAs at all (as with the Canon 80-200L), but much better resolution than the Canon 80-200 L.

Images will follow.


I remember from an old magazine, comparing many 135mm lenses. Nr 1 was C/Y Zeiss 135/2.8, but the Mamiya SX not far behind on nr 2. Nr 3 was Leica.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

I remember from an old magazine, comparing many 135mm lenses. Nr 1 was C/Y Zeiss 135/2.8, but the Mamiya SX not far behind on nr 2. Nr 3 was Leica.


As far as I remember the German physicist Walter E. Schön published a very thorough test on 135mm lenses in which the Zeiss CA 2.8/135mm was first, the Minolta MD 2.8/135mm [4/4] was second and the Leica R 2.8/135mm third.

According my own tests the optical performance of the Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135mm is quite a bit weaker than that of the Zeiss, and weaker than several other 2.8/135mm lenses I have. However, this is true for infinity, and probably the tests were made at closer distances. And the build quality and handling properties of the Leica Elmarit are extraodinary, of course.

S


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:38 am    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
The Oly is extremely small, and consist of only seven lenses. It would be a miracle if the Oly engineers would have been able to manufacture an excellent lens under these circumstances.


I think you have a point here. The hallmark of Zuiko lenses in the OM system has always been their small size and weight, especially when compared to their counterparts. This was a market strategy carefully designed by Olympus to differentiate itself from Nikon and Canon, which produced lenses for professionals, whose priorities were reliability, mechanical strength and optical performance, not extreme miniaturization of the lenses.

Inevitably, to make a lens very light and small, Olympus designers had to reduce the thickness and the number of optical elements used in each lens. These design constraints usually cost a price in terms of performance, which, however, has never been acknowledged by Olympus or by photo magazines and fans of the brand.

Today, Zuiko OM lenses have become a cult and the number of people interested in pointing out the performance limitations of Zuiko lenses has further decreased. To complicate matters, objectively evaluating the performance of a lens is not a simple task.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3