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

Best MF28mm f2 lens for A7
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I think (only think) that the K Pentax has the winner lens of the three.

Let see the real world


You might be right but I had the same expectation for my nFD35/2 vs MD35/2.8 comparison. The nFD lenses with floating elements seem to have some issues with the slide bearings that hold the rear group, a good copy of the 28/2 might be surprisingly good (like my nFD 35/2).

I mostly bought the 28 to see if I buying the Sony FE28/2 would make sense for me.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Which lenses are reported to have such issues? Maybe you have some links? I'm interested to check them.


Sorry, but I can't remember. It was a discussion here more than a year ago and referring to the sensor stack modification of the A7. It was stated that it may also make sense for SLR wide angles to increase corner sharpness.
However, you stated that you didn't realize any differences and I have to believe you as I can't check it myself.

thebbm wrote:
i think you are talking about leica M mount wide angle lenses.


I am definitely not talking about RF lenses where this issue is more than evident.


But Kolari vision says that the modification consists also in removing the AA filter. As a consequence even with lenses which have no corner issues with the A7 you should expect some improvements regarding the sharpness and the micro contrasts. Being clearly informed, you cannot complain if some moiré appears.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I did try Nikon and Kiron both was okay.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
papasito wrote:
I think (only think) that the K Pentax has the winner lens of the three.

Let see the real world


You might be right but I had the same expectation for my nFD35/2 vs MD35/2.8 comparison. The nFD lenses with floating elements seem to have some issues with the slide bearings that hold the rear group, a good copy of the 28/2 might be surprisingly good (like my nFD 35/2).


For years my only MF lenses were Minolta MC/MD lenses, and only a few years ago i started to collect also other brands. While Minolta certainly never did have the vast line-up of Canon FD or Nikon Ai/AiS, the Minolta lenses are mechanically superior, especially compared to Canon nFD lenses. All (!) of my Minolta MC/MD lenses still focus smoothly, while about 50% of the Nikkors either have stiff or "dry" focusing. Minolta simply did that better. In addition the optical quality of some famous Nikkors is surprisingly low, complared to the Minolta counterparts (e. g. early AF Nikkor 2.8/80-200 or 2.8/35-70mm). And while the old FD lenses are well built, their breech lock mechanism is ... a bit complicated Wink

Boris_Akunin wrote:
I mostly bought the 28 to see if I buying the Sony FE28/2 would make sense for me.

I have been using the Sony FE 2/28mm quickly on my A7/A7II (24MP FF). The results at f2 were impressing, certainly better than any of my vintage 2/28mm lenses (including the Minolta AF 2/28mm). Whether this is due to software correction or due to an actually excellent lens design remains an open question. Given the fact that Sony is applying a lot of correction to other lens/body combinations, i would guess that a large part of the image quality of the FE 2/28mm @ f2 comes from software correction.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Boris_Akunin wrote:
I mostly bought the 28 to see if I buying the Sony FE28/2 would make sense for me.

I have been using the Sony FE 2/28mm quickly on my A7/A7II (24MP FF). The results at f2 were impressing, certainly better than any of my vintage 2/28mm lenses (including the Minolta AF 2/28mm). Whether this is due to software correction or due to an actually excellent lens design remains an open question. Given the fact that Sony is applying a lot of correction to other lens/body combinations, i would guess that a large part of the image quality of the FE 2/28mm @ f2 comes from software correction.

Stephan

The test result on DXO had proven it is pretty good against the more expensive 35s in resolution.
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-lens-review-Wide-angle-prime-with-top-results/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-vs-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-FE-35mm-F1.4-ZA-vs-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-35mm-F2.8-ZA

Last edited by calvin83 on Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same here, I've been searching for the best 28/2 for a long time (Nikkor for me), but I bought Sony FE 28/2 and now I'm selling out the manual ones Smile.
I also bought dedicated converter for FE 28/2 and I have 21/2.8 in a moment. I don't need Flektogons, Mirs etc. right now.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
The test result on DXO had proven it is pretty good against the more expensive 35s in resolution.
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-lens-review-Wide-angle-prime-with-top-results/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-vs-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-FE-35mm-F1.4-ZA-vs-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-35mm-F2.8-ZA


The corner sharpness on FF, while not bad at all, seems to be not on par with neither of the 2 other Zeiss 35mm FE lenses. And they don't get much better stopped down, as I could read in reviews. This, together with a little higher level of CA and distortion, is considered to be its weak point compared with the 2 Zeiss wides.

But, of course, for its price it is a surprisingly good lens, probably better than most of the other MF older options on this FL. I think it is the best 28mm option on A7 for general use.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's my 28mm comparison, as promised (nFD 28/2 vs MC 28/2.5 vs K28/3.5).


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Please, do it.

I think (only think) that the K Pentax has the winner lens of the three.

Let see the real world


You were right. At the shared apertures, the K28 is clearly the best of the three. The nFD28's low contrast is a bit disappointing but the corners at large apertures are better than I expected. The MC28 is pretty good in the center but it needs to be stopped down a lot to get really sharp in the corners.

I prefer the nFD28's handling but that's mostly because the FD adapter turns it into a preset lens. The MC28 isn't worth the extra weight.

stevemark wrote:
For years my only MF lenses were Minolta MC/MD lenses, and only a few years ago i started to collect also other brands. While Minolta certainly never did have the vast line-up of Canon FD or Nikon Ai/AiS, the Minolta lenses are mechanically superior, especially compared to Canon nFD lenses. All (!) of my Minolta MC/MD lenses still focus smoothly, while about 50% of the Nikkors either have stiff or "dry" focusing. Minolta simply did that better. In addition the optical quality of some famous Nikkors is surprisingly low, complared to the Minolta counterparts (e. g. early AF Nikkor 2.8/80-200 or 2.8/35-70mm). And while the old FD lenses are well built, their breech lock mechanism is ... a bit complicated Wink


I'd still like to try the MDIII 28/2 but given it's rarity and the current prices, it'd be hard to get at a good price (I once missed one that sold for 30€ by a couple of hours Crying or Very sad ) and I'd probably sell it for profit anyway...

stevemark wrote:
I have been using the Sony FE 2/28mm quickly on my A7/A7II (24MP FF). The results at f2 were impressing, certainly better than any of my vintage 2/28mm lenses (including the Minolta AF 2/28mm). Whether this is due to software correction or due to an actually excellent lens design remains an open question. Given the fact that Sony is applying a lot of correction to other lens/body combinations, i would guess that a large part of the image quality of the FE 2/28mm @ f2 comes from software correction.


Do you know if Sony is baking some corrections into the raw files (like they do with the Loxia 21)?
The FE28 looks like a good compromise between hardware- and software-correction, doing it all optically would probably make larger and more expensive and you don't always need vignetting- and distortion-correction. I've read that the FE28 is more like 26mm without distortion correction, can you confirm that? I could find much information concerning field curvature.

chudy128314 wrote:
Same here, I've been searching for the best 28/2 for a long time (Nikkor for me), but I bought Sony FE 28/2 and now I'm selling out the manual ones Smile.
I also bought dedicated converter for FE 28/2 and I have 21/2.8 in a moment. I don't need Flektogons, Mirs etc. right now.


I've seen some shots with the converter that looked pretty good but they're all at f/8 to f/16. Any idea how it compares to 20/21mm legacy glass at larger apertures? A comparison with the Canon (n)FD 20/2.8 would be great, if anyone here has both...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If it helps, I've had the Canon FD 28mm F2 and the Minolta 28mm F2 and to be honest I wasn't very impressed, I would actually say the Sigma High Speed II 28mm F1.8 is better and cheaper than both but the body isn't as nice a quality.

Currently I'm using a Vivitar 28mm F2 Komine version, which isn't bad about the same as the minolta and Canon IMO. The Nikkor 24mm F2 is surprisingly good but also quite expensive


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The nFD28/2 seems to have quite severe sample variation issues because some parts are quite susceptible to wear.

Here's agood description of the problem (in German unfortunately).

Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Boris_Akunin"]
papasito wrote:
Please, do it.


Do you know if Sony is baking some corrections into the raw files (like they do with the Loxia 21)?
The FE28 looks like a good compromise between hardware- and software-correction, doing it all optically would probably make larger and more expensive and you don't always need vignetting- and distortion-correction. I've read that the FE28 is more like 26mm without distortion correction, can you confirm that? I could find much information concerning field curvature.
...

Yes the FE 28 f2 has a quite noticeable barrel distorsion. The field caught through this distorsion corresponds to a 26mm.
You can see that clearly in the measurements of DXOmarks. The distorsion is corrected only in the Jpeg .


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
The nFD28/2 seems to have quite severe sample variation issues because some part are quite susceptible to wear.

Here's agood description of the problem (in German unfortunately).


I can confirm that from my own experience.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
If it helps, I've had the Canon FD 28mm F2 and the Minolta 28mm F2 and to be honest I wasn't very impressed,
...


Which version of the Minolta 28mm f2? The newer (and smaller!) MD-III is distinctively better than the older and larger MC-X/M-I/MD-II versions!

see here on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/145-minolta-28mm-f2

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey Stephan,

It was the older one, I also had the older I think minolta 28mm F2.5 and that was a very nice lens but I've only ever used them on a crop sensor body.

Had some time to do some extra shots with the komine vivitar, close up and and infinity its ok but really good on the inbetween range fully open.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Layer-cake wrote:
If it helps, I've had the Canon FD 28mm F2 and the Minolta 28mm F2 and to be honest I wasn't very impressed,
...


Which version of the Minolta 28mm f2? The newer (and smaller!) MD-III is distinctively better than the older and larger MC-X/M-I/MD-II versions!

see here on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/145-minolta-28mm-f2

Stephan


I am confused. While you clearly state the MD 28 f2 is clearly superior to the MC and initial MDs, you also quote others' findings who found otherwise. May it be lens variance? Or my limited understanding?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Layer-cake wrote:
If it helps, I've had the Canon FD 28mm F2 and the Minolta 28mm F2 and to be honest I wasn't very impressed,
...


Which version of the Minolta 28mm f2? The newer (and smaller!) MD-III is distinctively better than the older and larger MC-X/M-I/MD-II versions!

see here on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/145-minolta-28mm-f2

Stephan


I am confused. While you clearly state the MD 28 f2 is clearly superior to the MC and initial MDs, you also quote others' findings who found otherwise. May it be lens variance? Or my limited understanding?


Could you point out the specific quote, I can't seem to find the one(s) you mean.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
Hey Stephan,

It was the older one, I also had the older I think minolta 28mm F2.5 and that was a very nice lens but I've only ever used them on a crop sensor body.


Yep, that explains it! The newer MD-III version (same computation as the later Minolta AF 2/28mm) is clearly superior to the older MC/MD-I and MD-II.

The earlier MC 2.5/28mm has radiactive thorium glass. Due to this (and due to the slower f number) it is a bit shareper than the later MC 2/28mm. I have tested three samples, so it's probably not just by chance!

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My German is very poor (I have not spoken it for over 40 years)... .I read it through a google translate so this may be wrong but here you are


"I did not pay attention to rotating front lenses, but I noticed that my" plain MD ", which is the last one in nine lenses, delivers very moderate picture results, while my MC version is much sharper with the aperture opener 28mm superior. "

Fwiesenberg (www.mi-fo.de)

"The MC Rokkor 1: 2 28mm is the strongest 28mm from Minolta - it keeps me with my Schneider PC Angulon 2.8 28mm full with and that means quite a lot of fun with it."

Hans-J. (Www.mi-fo.de)

...

This being reported, I tend to take Stephen's word ref lenses...I was just asking for clarification and he gave it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry, i have written a lenghty and detailed answer - but the website refuses to publish it (only empty space ...)

I'll try again later!

Last edited by stevemark on Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Quote:

...
I am confused. While you clearly state the MD 28 f2 is clearly superior to the MC and initial MDs, you also quote others' findings who found otherwise. May it be lens variance? Or my limited understanding?


Could you point out the specific quote, I can't seem to find the one(s) you mean.


I have grown up in a living real democracy, and i respect others opinions, even if i consider them to be wrong Wink

Yes, you are right, there's a person frequently cited on my website who often and with persitence claims that MD-III lenses are optically inferior to the earlier MC-X/MD-I counterparts. I have found this to be true only for the MD-III 1.7/50mm (three samples tested), but otherwise the MD-III versions are often slightly or even destinctively better that their MC-X/MD-I counterparts. This is true e. g. for the following lenses:

MC-X 2.8/21mm vs MD-III 2.8/20mm
MC-X/MD-I 2.8/24mm vs MD-III 2.8/24mm
MC-X 3.5/28mm [7/7] vs MD-I/MD-II/MD-III 3.5/28 [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I/MD-II 2/28mm vs MD-III 2/28mm
MC-X 2.8/35mm [7/7] vs MD-III 2.8/35 [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I 1.7/85mm vs MD-II/MD-III 2/85mm
MC-X/MD-I 2.5/100mm [6/5] vs MD-III 2.5/100mm [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I 3.5/135mm [4/4] vs MD-II/MD-III 3.5/135mm [5/5]

MD-II 3.5/35-70mm vs MD-III 3.5/35mm (non-Macro and Macro versions)
MD-II 4.5/75-200mm vs MD-III 4/70-210mm

Oftten this is reflected also in the published lens sections. Superficially they look identical, but if you superimpose them, you'll find that the radii of the newer versions are bigger (= less curvature). This indicates that different glass with higher refractive index has been used to replace the original glass, resulting in less aberrations:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/186-minolta-35-70mm-f35 (look at the front lens!)

In addition there are a few excellent MD-III zooms, which have no counterpart in the MC-X or MD-I/-II lineup:
MD-III 3.5-4.5/28-85mm
MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm (both versions)
MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-135mm
MD-III 4/70-150mm
MD-III 8/100-500mm APO (not based on my own experience but from what i've heard/seen in the web ...)

The published lens sections from MD-I and MD-III 4/24-50mm suggest, that the MD-III is better than the MD-I, but i have not compared them 1:1 yet (i don't own the MD-III version):
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/185-minolta-24-50mm-f4

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
... obviously it's time to translate the artaphot stuff to English...

Would any native English speaking person here be willing to correct my raw translations before they are published?

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
... obviously it's time to translate the artaphot stuff to English...

Would any native English speaking person here be willing to correct my raw translations before they are published?

Stephan


Sorry to go off topic here but I have the PG 50mm 1.4 and find it to be a great lens (sold off all my other 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 lenses), I see it's actually the older version. How does this lens compare with the later 50mm 1.4 lenses?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Quote:

...
I am confused. While you clearly state the MD 28 f2 is clearly superior to the MC and initial MDs, you also quote others' findings who found otherwise. May it be lens variance? Or my limited understanding?


Could you point out the specific quote, I can't seem to find the one(s) you mean.


I have grown up in a living real democracy, and i respect others opinions, even if i consider them to be wrong Wink

Yes, you are right, there's a person frequently cited on my website who often and with persitence claims that MD-III lenses are optically inferior to the earlier MC-X/MD-I counterparts. I have found this to be true only for the MD-III 1.7/50mm (three samples tested), but otherwise the MD-III versions are often slightly or even destinctively better that their MC-X/MD-I counterparts. This is true e. g. for the following lenses:

MC-X 2.8/21mm vs MD-III 2.8/20mm
MC-X/MD-I 2.8/24mm vs MD-III 2.8/24mm
MC-X 3.5/28mm [7/7] vs MD-I/MD-II/MD-III 3.5/28 [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I/MD-II 2/28mm vs MD-III 2/28mm
MC-X 2.8/35mm [7/7] vs MD-III 2.8/35 [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I 1.7/85mm vs MD-II/MD-III 2/85mm
MC-X/MD-I 2.5/100mm [6/5] vs MD-III 2.5/100mm [5/5]
MC-X/MD-I 3.5/135mm [4/4] vs MD-II/MD-III 3.5/135mm [5/5]

MD-II 3.5/35-70mm vs MD-III 3.5/35mm (non-Macro and Macro versions)
MD-II 4.5/75-200mm vs MD-III 4/70-210mm

Oftten this is reflected also in the published lens sections. Superficially they look identical, but if you superimpose them, you'll find that the radii of the newer versions are bigger (= less curvature). This indicates that different glass with higher refractive index has been used to replace the original glass, resulting in less aberrations:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/186-minolta-35-70mm-f35 (look at the front lens!)

In addition there are a few excellent MD-III zooms, which have no counterpart in the MC-X or MD-I/-II lineup:
MD-III 3.5-4.5/28-85mm
MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm (both versions)
MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-135mm
MD-III 4/70-150mm
MD-III 8/100-500mm APO (not based on my own experience but from what i've heard/seen in the web ...)

The published lens sections from MD-I and MD-III 4/24-50mm suggest, that the MD-III is better than the MD-I, but i have not compared them 1:1 yet (i don't own the MD-III version):
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/185-minolta-24-50mm-f4

Stephan


I think that presumed superiority of MD3 vs earlier MC/MD Rokkors is largely based on testing a few,simple technical aspects (i.e sharpness,corner smearing,LoCa,CA... ect.And yes,bearing only that in mind,latest MD lenses aften look best.

However,there are more parameters that make up for drawing style of the lens,like colour rendition/shift/balance,microcontrast,oof blurr,positive effect of not fully corrected abberrations on image quality and the likes.Taking all that into account may change the overall ranking.

Having nearly all Minolta lenses mentioned above,my preference is still with late MC and MD1 Rokkors.I am not saying MD3s are inferior - they are very good,but more uniform,similar and deprived of individual character versus my favourites.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Stephan! Very helpful
By any chance do you also have comparison 135mm f2.8 version 4/4 versus 5/5 (I have this one quite compact)?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3