Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta MD 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 - are tested, again...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your work - i know it takes quite some time to do all that stuff!!

Technically, i do absolutely agree with your results.

When it comes to actual photography, i may add one or two comments.

Quote:
... from my point of view, it needs to avoid a wide opened aperture. The next F2 can be OK for some portraits, but better to start from F2.8.


For portraits i would recommend to use the MC-II 1.4/58mm wide open.
The softness you describe is quite useful if you want to avoid too harsh details (the details are there, of course, but their contrast is very low, thus promoting the overall view instead of the details themselves). Combined with the beautiful bokeh at f1.4, this results in well balanced portraits, especially when using the b/w modus of the Sony A7 series.

Quote:
After the getting of tests results, I don’t realize the one: why the prices of this lens are so low on auctions?

Absolutely correct. The lens is, expecially on 16 MP APS-C, a terrific portrait lens at f1.4 ... f2, and a nice landscape lens at f5.6 ... f8.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
For portraits i would recommend to use the MC-II 1.4/58mm wide open.[/b] The softness you describe is quite useful if you want to avoid too harsh details

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree.
There indeed exists an effect of "pleasant softness" caused by spherical aberrations and 58/1.4 possesses pretty much none of it.
It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism.

"Pleasant softness" is what Rokkor 55/1.7 truly excels at.
Compared to 55/1.7 this lens is not a contender.


stevemark wrote:
beautiful bokeh at f1.4


I could not disagree more. Wide open bokeh of 58/1.4 is just.. not great, to say the least. An acquired taste, politely speaking.
The good news are: 58/1.4 is one of those lenses where stopped down bokeh is significantly better.

In my experience you have to stop it down to F2.8 to get great boken, resolutiion and contrast.


I've posted my opinion on 58/1.4 bokeh here: http://forum.mflenses.com/bokeh-only-t69142,start,1100.html#1525594
Compare this to 55/1.7: http://forum.mflenses.com/bokeh-only-t69142,start,1100.html#1525592


For me 58/1.4 is more like 58/2.8 in practice, and I haven't found much reason for hauling around 291g of 55/2.8.
I'm afraid I can't rate 58/1.4 anything above mediocre: it really failed to deliver on those F1.4 and F2 stops on 36Mp FF sensor.




PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i like my 58mm 1,4 wide open (MC II version)



PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:
For portraits i would recommend to use the MC-II 1.4/58mm wide open.[/b] The softness you describe is quite useful if you want to avoid too harsh details

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree.
There indeed exists an effect of "pleasant softness" caused by spherical aberrations and 58/1.4 possesses pretty much none of it.
It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism.


I'm pretty confident that you are ranting about the first computation of the Minolta 1.4/58mm.
This first computation is found in the Auto Rokkor and the MC-I 1.4/58mm.
We are talking about the MC-II here, which has an improved optical formula ("second computation").

This second computation of the MC 1.4/58mm (according to both Dieter Gabler in its book about the SR-T101 and Modern Photography [Feb 1970]) is much better than the first one.
I have seen the same, based on tests with one Auto Rokkor, one MC-I, and two MC-II samples.
Let's look at the 100% crops below:






aidaho wrote:

"Pleasant softness" is what Rokkor 55/1.7 truly excels at.
Compared to 55/1.7 this lens is not a contender.

Again, you seem to talk about the Auto Rokkor / MC-I 58mm 1:1.4 lens!



aidaho wrote:

stevemark wrote:
beautiful bokeh at f1.4


I could not disagree more. Wide open bokeh of 58/1.4 is just.. not great, to say the least. An acquired taste, politely speaking.
The good news are: 58/1.4 is one of those lenses where stopped down bokeh is significantly better.

Look at my tests here:
* For MC-I and MC-II 1.4/58mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/477-standard-lens-bokeh-i
* For ten common vintage 1.4/lenses: http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/479-standard-lens-bokeh-ii

Obviously using the MC 1.4/58mm will create a much smoother background than using any of the common 1.4/50mm lenses tested!. I think that's noteworthy.


aidaho wrote:

For me 58/1.4 is more like 58/2.8 in practice, and I haven't found much reason for hauling around 291g of 55/2.8.
I'm afraid I can't rate 58/1.4 anything above mediocre: it really failed to deliver on those F1.4 and F2 stops on 36Mp FF sensor.

I've never been stating that the MC-II 1.4/58mm at f1.4 or at f2 would deliver high-contrast images on 36MP FF sensors.

The lens, however, is quite useful for "mixed use" both for
1) portraits (at f1.4 or maybe also f2) and
2) landscape (at f5.6-f11)

However, I fully agree with you that the earlier Auto Rokkor and MC-I variants of the Minolta 1.4/58mm are not really useful wide open or at f2, especially on 36MP FF.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

I'm pretty confident that you are ranting about the first computation of the Minolta 1.4/58mm.
This first computation is found in the Auto Rokkor and the MC-I 1.4/58mm.
We are talking about the MC-II here, which has an improved optical formula ("second computation").


Here is how my copy looked like:



Pretty sure it's an MC-II. It was in great condition too.



stevemark wrote:

Obviously using the MC 1.4/58mm will create a much smoother background than using any of the common 1.4/50mm lenses tested!. I think that's noteworthy.

I believe you are conflating quality of the bokeh with it's quantity.
Sure, with WOW factor of 41 there is a lot of the latter.

As for the quality, look no further than this image from the test by tf:



Just like I've said above: F1.4 is not great at all and F2.8 is where things start looking really good.
To put this into perspective, look at the same scene from the lens, which is commonly labelled as "the worst bokeh among 50/1.4": https://photolenses.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/fdn5014_k_bokeh_far_2m.jpg (not embedding to avoid stretching post even further)
Even significant advantage in WOW didn't help with spacing wide open shots very far apart.

I haven't observed "much smoother background" in the real world shooting, and I can't see this to be true in tf tests either.



TL;DR: I really don't get why 58/1.4 is praised as high as it is.
Sure, just like with pretty much any lens, one can take great pictures. I believe I did so too.
But it's easier for me to list weaker fifties than to name all of the "better" ones.


P.S. For deeper diving into the "quantity does not equate quality" topic I recommend checking out 7Artisans 50/1.1.
At WOW 45.5 it beats on quantity even significantly longer Rokkor 58/1.4 but quality-wise it is even worse than Rokkor.


Last edited by aidaho on Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is amazing how many different opinions can be about the same lens. I think this is because that lens is at least unusual Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been shooting with the MC-II 1.4/58mm today - not portraits, but an even more difficult subject: coloured glass windows with glass parts (thick broken chunks of traditionally manufactured glass from ancient french manufactories) built into a frame of concrete (not lead, as commonly done). The black concrete parts are quite large, and the luminous glass area is relatively small. Using a "good" lens will result in dull, boring images. I have to introduce some spherical aberration to make the images look "real".

Usually i take either the Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/145mm or the Minolta MD 2.8/85mm SoftFocus; today i took with me also the MC-II 1.4/58mm.

Comparing the MC-II 1.4/58mm with the MD 2.8/85mm SoftFocus, it turned out that the specialized (and very expensive) SF lens had more astigmatism than the MC-II 1.4/58mm (both lenses wide open). In fact, the images taken with the MC 1.4/58mm @ f1.4 were very nice, with a fair (and useful) amount of spherical aberration in the center and some well shaped coma towards the corners.

Look at the images yourself - you may get an idea of the "glow" that is typical for this at f1.4. Unlike other lenses, this glow at f1.4 is spread very evenly across the entire FF image which makes is very useful in some situations including portraiture.

First the entire image, resized to 1000px (MC-II 1.4/58mm @ f1.4):



aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:
For portraits i would recommend to use the MC-II 1.4/58mm wide open.[/b] The softness you describe is quite useful if you want to avoid too harsh details

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree.
There indeed exists an effect of "pleasant softness" caused by spherical aberrations and 58/1.4 possesses pretty much none of it.
It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism.


Now the 100% crop from the center of the image (MC-II 1.4/58mm @ f1.4) - I certainly woudln't call that a "muddy and murky softness". To my eyes it looks rather pleasant:


And finally 100% crop from the corner of the image (MC-II 1.4/58mm @ f1.4):


Even at f1.4, the lens gives us a remarkable amount of detail. Remember: these are the corners of a 24MP FF image taken with a 50 year old lens at f1.4.

And: I can't see any astigmatism (look at Moses holding the Tables of Law: its latin numbers are remarkably well depicted in any direction).



aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:

I'm pretty confident that you are ranting about the first computation of the Minolta 1.4/58mm.
This first computation is found in the Auto Rokkor and the MC-I 1.4/58mm.
We are talking about the MC-II here, which has an improved optical formula ("second computation").


Here is how my copy looked like:



Pretty sure it's an MC-II. It was in great condition too.


It sure is MC-II Wink

Now we basically have three possibilities:

1) Your lens has the qualities as mine, and we simply judge them differently
2) Your lens is de-centered (causing some astigmatism i can't see on my lens)
3) The change from "computation 1" to "computation 2" occured within the MC-II series, and not - as I may wrongly have thought - at the transition from MC-I to MC-II.

It might be useful if you could provide us some examples of what you mean by "It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism."

Thank you in advance!

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

It might be useful if you could provide us some examples of what you mean by "It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism."

Thank you in advance!

Stephan

Since I'm talking about something I have no proper vocabulary for, please bear with me.
There are things that we can see and discern in lenses, but it's much harder to put these differences in words, because we aren't equipped with proper definitions, and as such, one has to make do.

Roughly speaking, I classify softness into the one caused by astigmatism (lack of resolution, inability to land "enough" sharp pixels at target not caused by missed focus, very poor local contrast) and the one caused by spherical aberrations (glow, which is affecting microcontrast without significant hit on optical resolution). Coma rendering can also play a big role, but for the sake of brevity I'm going to skip that.

Sometimes the mix of causes just works for the lens, and sometimes it just does not.
Some lenses are corrected in such a way they exhibit two distinctly different behaviours closer to MFD and for far focus distances.

I have just two images posted taken with Rokkor at F2.



As far as I remember, this one was probably the only one quite alright without that much processing:




This one I remember was very frustrating to develop:



Even after using all my RAW developing voodoo, It just wasn't quite where I wanted it to be.


I haven't published any shots at F1.4, because I just couldn't develop them up to my standard.
I think they mostly went into the trash bin, but I've dug up this one:


(there is a tiny misfocus, but you get the idea)

The "murky muddiness" I refer to is a makeshift colloquial term I'm using to describe lack of resolution paired with screwed up local contrasts, which I can't quite recover from in the post.


In several months I've owned 58/1.4 I wasn't impressed with F1.4 and F2 performance.
Too much work in development for not exactly a satisfying result.



(Kitty shares his doubts about wide open Rokkor 58/1.4 performance)


PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two similar copies of Minolta MC 58mm F1.4 have been compared on infinity and on 1.70m distance -"lens romantic" test


PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I like the MC-I 58/1.4. It's not the best, but it does make nice images. You can see my test here: http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-50mm-bokeh-compared-t80005.html

I'll share some examples all shot wide open on TMAX 100 and scanned by a flatbed. It's hard to focus in low light on an SRT, so you can take the subject sharpness with a grain of salt, but you get the idea. This lens is nice in black and white - just maybe not so much in colour, but then I have real portrait lenses if that's what I'm aiming for. At F2, the outline on the bokeh is gone and it's much more pleasing. From my chart, you can see the 55/1.7 is probably the better choice. I'll get an MC-II 58/1.4 eventually and run a short comparison. The most obvious aberrations are visible in images 1 and 4.

https://imgur.com/a/XAkET5M

The precise optical composition of this lens was adjusted at every model, not only MC-I and MC-II. Development was continuous.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:

It might be useful if you could provide us some examples of what you mean by "It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism."

Thank you in advance!

Stephan

Since I'm talking about something I have no proper vocabulary for, please bear with me.
There are things that we can see and discern in lenses, but it's much harder to put these differences in words, because we aren't equipped with proper definitions, and as such, one has to make do.


Of course I have the same difficulties, especially since i'm not a native English ... Anyway, i think eventually we will understand each other Wink

aidaho wrote:

Roughly speaking, I classify softness into the one caused by astigmatism (lack of resolution, inability to land "enough" sharp pixels at target not caused by missed focus, very poor local contrast) and the one caused by spherical aberrations (glow, which is affecting microcontrast without significant hit on optical resolution). Coma rendering can also play a big role, but for the sake of brevity I'm going to skip that.

I agree about that - but I'd like to add that (at f1.4) the shape of coma is quite important - those lenses having a both a rounded coma flare and little astigmatism result in a very nice softness. Lenses with a "butterfly" or even "mushroom-like" coma don't have a nice looking softness; they usually result in dull and smeared outer parts of the image.

The Nikkor 2/50mm is a good example for a well balanced correction - it has a low contrast at f2, but no obvious astigmatism and well shaped coma. If you read Kouichi Oshitas description of the image characteristics (https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0002/index.htm, the go to "III. Imaging characteristics of the AI Nikkor 50mm f/2") you can see what i mean. Quite exactly the same could be said also about the MC-II 1.4/58mm. Oshita is a senior lens designer at Nikon, and his description is really precise.


aidaho wrote:

This one I remember was very frustrating to develop:



Even after using all my RAW developing voodoo, It just wasn't quite where I wanted it to be.


Thanks for sharing this image - it's much easier now to see what you mean. Obviously there are quite a few problems when shooting such a scenery:

* the shiny spots of light coming through all the leaves are very demanding in terms of bokeh
* the relatively small distance between subject and background (for a 58mm lens at least) is adding to the bokeh problems
* the aperture set at f2 causes the center not to have flare (spherical aberrations are gone), but the periphery to be veiled by coma flare => can't be properly corrected in PP
* the green light from the trees & leaves causes huge problems with skin tones

For such scenery, i would suggest to take a longer lens - either a 2.8/200 or a 2.8/300.
With any vintage 1.4/50mm, 55mm or 58mm lens i know you would run into the same (or even worse) difficulties.



aidaho wrote:

I haven't published any shots at F1.4, because I just couldn't develop them up to my standard.
I think they mostly went into the trash bin, but I've dug up this one:


(there is a tiny misfocus, but you get the idea)

To be honest (and no offense intended!!) I am very pleased about the resolution of your MC-II 1.4/58mm at f1.4 (below there's a 100% crop from your 36 MP image taken at f1.4!!):

[/quote]

As you said yourself, the image simply is misfocused (by about 5-10 cm). Therefore the face is missing details ("murky muddiness").

aidaho wrote:

The "murky muddiness" I refer to is a makeshift colloquial term I'm using to describe lack of resolution paired with screwed up local contrasts, which I can't quite recover from in the post.
In several months I've owned 58/1.4 I wasn't impressed with F1.4 and F2 performance.
Too much work in development for not exactly a satisfying result.


As I've said before, looking at your images, i would recommend the following:

* for images showing the entire body (or a large part of it): Use longer lenses such as a 2.8/200 or even 2.8/300 (or 4/300)
* if you use the 58mm for portraits: 1) go much closer, 2) use f1.4, and 3) focus with extreme care & precision

I will take some portrait samples with the MC-II 1.4/58mm next week and show you what the lens actually can do.

aidaho wrote:


(Kitty shares his doubts about wide open Rokkor 58/1.4 performance)


If you are talking about bokeh - it's noisy, but i do not know any vintage lens in the 50mm f1.4 range that would do it better (and there are quite a few which would would be worse) ... and when it comes to detail resolution, your 36 MP image clearly proves how good the 1.4/58mm is at f1.4 (again 100% crops from your image above):



Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
To be honest (and no offense intended!!) I am very pleased about the resolution of your MC-II 1.4/58mm at f1.4 (below there's a 100% crop from your 36 MP image taken at f1.4!!)

Since we put aside any doubts about my copy of the lens, and now looking at the same images, it's going to be easier for us to understand each other.

You are looking at the end result and likely referencing them with your own results, which likely saw much less intervention in the RAW development.

I'm absolutely guilty of using contrast by details and local contrasts to achieve what I consider to be a "proper" look.
I do avoid a stronger unsharp mask as much as possible, but I definitely used a touch of that too in the images above.
I've even pulled my nuclear option once or twice: 4:1 binning

Many (actually, likely all of which I tried) 50/1.4 show better 1:1 center performance at F1.4 without that much work.

As for the kitty, I see a tell-tale signs of me messing up with microcontrast Smile
Does wonders with hair at the high price of the serious noise amplification, so I can get away with it only around base ISO.

stevemark wrote:

For such scenery, i would suggest to take a longer lens - either a 2.8/200 or a 2.8/300.
With any vintage 1.4/50mm, 55mm or 58mm lens i know you would run into the same (or even worse) difficulties.

I wouldn't take 200+ due to space constraints, but I do understand where you are coming from.
Most of my photography is trevel-ish, so I have pretty strict weight limits.
Up to 250g is great, but once the lens is edging closer to 300g, it really has to justify it's place in my bag.
Some lenses, which I consider to be "better/more useful to me" than 58/1.4, like MC Rokkor-PF 50mm F1.4, failed in becoming my walkaround lens just due to the weight.

The reason why I'm so nitpicky about a 50-ish lenses is because most of the travel photos tend to be unscripted/unplanned and my most likely lens to shot a portrait tends to be the one on the camera. Which is usually the ~50mm.

In fact, the woman above is a great example.
I visited the museum which planned a photoshoot for their calendar.
Their photographer forgot his batteries and went looking for them.

In the meantime I befriended/stole his model and started shooting with what I had on camera.
Which was Rokkor 58/1.4. Once I understood I will have time for something else, I've pulled a tiny Zuiko 100/2.8



And once It became clear the traffic will held the designated photog even longer, I've pulled an MD 50/2 and got bold enough to ask to shoot inside the museum exposition:





I guess such lack of planning doesn't speak very highly of me as photographer, but I'm just doing this for fun.
If I had planned this shoot, then sure, I'd get a longer faster lens, pre-shoot my locations and think ahead in general.
As it stands, there is a zero chance of fast 200+mm casually waiting in my backpack, day after day, for a chance to mount the camera.
I've been able to pull two extra lenses out of the thin air because they are small and light enough to ride my back all day, several days in the row.



That being said, back to Rokkor 58/1.4.
As much as you are impressed with end results, at F1.4 it's center performance for portraiture is below of several 50/1.4s I've tried. I don't see a reason to work in post for something I'm getting for free elsewhere.
Rokkor 58/1.4 bokeh is not something I would call good, unless the lens is stopped down to F2.8.
I feel like Rokkor had no advantage over any other fast 50.

stevemark wrote:

If you are talking about bokeh - it's noisy, but i do not know any vintage lens in the 50mm f1.4 range that would do it better (and there are quite a few which would would be worse)

I can name a few right off the bat:
Outdoors, with lots of bright OOF highlights: Minolta MD-III 50/1.4
Indoors, with no OOF highlights: Zuiko 50/1.4 is a bit smoother than competition and has a chance against Rokkor

If you go a bit slower, Minolta 55/1.7 and Minolta 55/1.9 despite a big WOW/quantity disadvantage will crush 58/1.4 on bokeh quality in pretty much any scene.



Again, I have to reiterate: 58/1.4 is not bad lens, incapable of good images.
But it is definitely the most overhyped one I've owned.
It simply isn't better than whatever is in your collection of 50/1.4s, and it's reputation of the "little brother of Rokkor 58/1.2" has no substance behind it.
Rokkor 58/1.4 is so universally praised, it's failure to deliver leaves a sour taste.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
"Pleasant softness" is what Rokkor 55/1.7 truly excels at.


Is this basically the same lens as the Rokkor 55mm f2?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:
aidaho wrote:
"Pleasant softness" is what Rokkor 55/1.7 truly excels at.


Is this basically the same lens as the Rokkor 55mm f2?

I haven't owned this one, IIRC it's from the same family.
I also have a Rokkor 55/1.9 which also came from the same lineage as 55/1.7.

Somewhat different from a 55/1.7, but definitely one of the top fifties I've owned.
I haven't used it long enough to give a final opinion though.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another one review of Minolta MC Rokkor PG 58mm 1:1.2

Actually, this is a significantly updated article because the old one wasn't good enough. There are no changes in the conclusion, just some tests have been re-made and some new materials were added.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="aidaho"]
stevemark wrote:
For portraits i would recommend to use the MC-II 1.4/58mm wide open.[/b] The softness you describe is quite useful if you want to avoid too harsh details

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree.
There indeed exists an effect of "pleasant softness" caused by spherical aberrations and 58/1.4 possesses pretty much none of it.
It's softness is muddy and murky, something I attribute to astigmatism.

"Pleasant softness" is what Rokkor 55/1.7 truly excels at.
Compared to 55/1.7 this lens is not a contender.


------------------------------------------

I agree with Stephan and tf.

I have tried to love minolta MC 55/1.7 and my other "normal" lenses (MDIII 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 50/2; yashica ML 50/2; and hexanon 40/1.8); which are usually more convenient than 58mm field of view (which is more like a 60mm). The minolta MC-II 58/1.4 may be not a general purpose lens, i find my MDIII 1.4 and f2 lenses to have a much more even sharpness across the frame until small apertures; but its portrait capabilities are not comparable.

The MC 55/1.7 may have a better bokeh, but I obtain a similar (or better) subjet separation with the 58mm at f/2 (comparing with f/1.7 in the 55mm) with less haze, more contrast and with a pleasant bokeh (in my opinion).

I reserve its f/1.4 aperture for artistic purposes, having a rather unique rendering and bubble shape bokeh, it seems like a painting. In contrast at f/2 it seems to be a different lens, improving contrast and reducing haze to very good levels for portrait purpose. For single person portraits or few people y usually use f/2 to f/2.5 aperture; and for groups f/2.8 to f/3,2.

I can`t achieve the background separation I obtain with this lens with any other 50mm; and its field of view distorts faces even less than a 50mm.

Maybe the new voigtlander 58/1.4 could be an alternative (not sure); or the much more hefty and expensive minolta 58/1.2. 85 mm lenses are excellent for portrait purposes, but usually too long for the city crowdn.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Here are a few samples wide open (#5,6 and 7) and at f/2:
#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


#11


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pacónidas wrote:

Here are a few samples wide open (#5,6 and 7) and at f/2:

Amazing street-photos, thank you


PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The great Minolta colors rendition - a little research of that holy grail


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta MC Rokkor PG 58mm 1:1.2 versus Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 - the battle


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
The great Minolta colors rendition - a little research of that holy grail


At last.
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
The internet is full of statements that are copied and repeated without checking their veracity.
I am so glad that you have taken an objective approach.
Appreciated
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When using autoWB, Canon FDns are pretty distinctly cold-ish, but to me Minoltas do not look very much different from, say, Olympuses.

I've pulled my own test shots for bokeh in tough conditions, and I guess I've soundly proved myself wrong:



Minolta MC 55/1.7@F2



Canon FDn 50/1.4@F2


Sony AWB made "cold" Canon a touch warmer than Minolta and exposed a touch brighter through Minolta.

You can also see how 55/1.7 really struggles to assert dominance at long distance with insufficient spacing to background.
This is partially because FDn 50/1.4@F2 gains a lot of bokeh quality with first aperture stop.
Something people rarely mention before dismissing this lens as too unpleasant in bokeh department.


Last edited by aidaho on Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
tf wrote:
The great Minolta colors rendition - a little research of that holy grail


At last.
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
The internet is full of statements that are copied and repeated without checking their veracity.
I am so glad that you have taken an objective approach.
Appreciated
Tom


tf, in his article about colors wrote:
On the other hand – I’m a person who makes a lot of mistakes and doesn’t understand a lot of things. Maybe it is just my wrong opinion and I simply don’t see the things which are seen by a lot of photographers?

I would be appreciated if someone tell me that I’m wrong and why.


Interesting test - yet I personally often have observed (during real world tests) how different lenses react to the same scenery. There's an explanation, and I will show you why in your test everything looks identical while on my real world tests (landscape, towns, architecture) repeatedly the differences are there.

I have quite a lot of work right now since the light theses days is excellent, and careful testing - as you know - requires quite a lot of time, especially when publishing the results. I definitely will come back to the subject.

S


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouch: I've accidentally edited and destroyed my post above.
Meant to reply with a quote, but clicked "Edit".

Anyway, I made some "I believe so-and-so" statements and some of them turned out to be not true when looking at the shots made in identical conditions.
Read an edited post above and remember not to listen to anyone notions about "lens colors".

Including my own, he-he.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
Ouch:
Anyway, I made some "I believe so-and-so" statements and some of them turned out to be not true when looking at the shots made in identical conditions.
Read an edited post above and remember not to listen to anyone notions about "lens colors".

Including my own, he-he.


I'll show you the differences in color rendition.
Promised!

Stephan