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

The Flu and the Yashica ML Lineup
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting. So is the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 a better lens than even the Planar or are we just looking at sample variation?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
Interesting. So is the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 a better lens than even the Planar or are we just looking at sample variation?

yes better than old planar! aside from steve's remarkable job to test these lenses you find the very consistent result from other reviews as well! like these from verybiglobo:
http://www.verybiglobo.com/50mm-f1-4-legacy-lenses-shootout-wide-open/

basically the MDIII and nFD are at same levels. nfd is better at center and MDIII is better in corners and old planar is between those 2 in both center and corners. i dont think thats just copies variation.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and even more shocking (at least for me) the nfd and MDIII are even better than some legendary and expensive exotic canon lenses in corners:
http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison


PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
Interesting. So is the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 a better lens than even the Planar or are we just looking at sample variation?


Someone on the Red User forum with a collimator and optical bench theorised that the Planar lens groups were so over-engineered and precisely fitted into the housing that it pinched them and distorted the image. The author was unable to accurately calibrate and center the Zeiss lens but even after both were done, it still produced more resolution than a Helios 44, which achieved more uniform centering. Both lenses were in mint condition still sealed with the factory lacquer.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raxar wrote:
and even more shocking (at least for me) the nfd and MDIII are even better than some legendary and expensive exotic canon lenses in corners:
http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison


I have been doing some "quick and dirty" tests comparing the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L and the Minolta MD-III 1.2/50mm @ f1.2. I couldn't see much difference.

In fact, Minolta had some aspheric MD-III 1.2/50mm prototypes as well; it seems they came to the conclusion that "asph" wasn't worth the trouble.

S


PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Raxar wrote:
and even more shocking (at least for me) the nfd and MDIII are even better than some legendary and expensive exotic canon lenses in corners:
http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison


I have been doing some "quick and dirty" tests comparing the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L and the Minolta MD-III 1.2/50mm @ f1.2. I couldn't see much difference.

In fact, Minolta had some aspheric MD-III 1.2/50mm prototypes as well; it seems they came to the conclusion that "asph" wasn't worth the trouble.

S


thanks for the update. did you see any difference in CA?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Raxar wrote:
and even more shocking (at least for me) the nfd and MDIII are even better than some legendary and expensive exotic canon lenses in corners:
http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison


I have been doing some "quick and dirty" tests comparing the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L and the Minolta MD-III 1.2/50mm @ f1.2. I couldn't see much difference.

In fact, Minolta had some aspheric MD-III 1.2/50mm prototypes as well; it seems they came to the conclusion that "asph" wasn't worth the trouble.

S


Recently, i was stumbling over an old test of 50/55 mm lenses with 1.2 made by the German magazine ColorFoto in the late seventies. Of the two tested Canon lenses (55 mm f/1.2 and 55 mm f/1.2 Aspherical) the cheaper one without aspherical elements tested even slightly better than the "luxury" version. BTW, the aspherical versions were mainly designed to produce better images of light sources (night cityscapes and astrophotography) without coma tails (Noct- Nikkor, Noctilux, etc.) but otherwise they were not supposed to be sharper than the standard versions.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alsatian2017 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Raxar wrote:
and even more shocking (at least for me) the nfd and MDIII are even better than some legendary and expensive exotic canon lenses in corners:
http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison


I have been doing some "quick and dirty" tests comparing the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L and the Minolta MD-III 1.2/50mm @ f1.2. I couldn't see much difference.

In fact, Minolta had some aspheric MD-III 1.2/50mm prototypes as well; it seems they came to the conclusion that "asph" wasn't worth the trouble.

S


Recently, i was stumbling over an old test of 50/55 mm lenses with 1.2 made by the German magazine ColorFoto in the late seventies. Of the two tested Canon lenses (55 mm f/1.2 and 55 mm f/1.2 Aspherical) the cheaper one without aspherical elements tested even slightly better than the "luxury" version.

These Test, probably by Walter E. Schön, were the very best at the time. Nevertheless i don't trust them, especially when f1.2 lenses were involved: The average deviation of the film from the ideal "flat" position was way higher than the depth-of-field at f1.2.


Alsatian2017 wrote:

BTW, the aspherical versions were mainly designed to produce better images of light sources (night cityscapes and astrophotography) without coma tails (Noct- Nikkor, Noctilux, etc.) but otherwise they were not supposed to be sharper than the standard versions.

Are you sure?

S


PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:


I would say that "Carl Zeiss glass" is a lens
1) calculated by Carl Zeiss opticians / engineers
2) manufactured by Carl Zeiss (be it in Oberkochen or in Jena)

Of course Zeiss argues that lenses
1) calculated by Zeiss engineers and
2) manufactured elsewhere
are genuine "Carl Zeiss" as well.

These days at Zeiss Oberkochen they go even further, claiming that glass
1) calculated by others (Sony, Fuji or Tamron engineers)
2) manufactured at Sony (e. g. ZA 2.8/16-35 or 2.8/24-70), Fuji (Otus lenses) or Tamron (Batis 1.8/85)
3) and labelled "Carl Zeiss"
is "genuine Carl Zeiss glass". I doubt it.

Now you are claiming that glass
1) calculated by Yashica engineers
2) manufactured at Yashica and
3) saying "Yashica Lens ML 50mm 1:1.7"
is "Carl Zeiss glass".

I seriously doubt it.

S


Your definition would sound reasonable for Carl Zeiss Lenses
To have Carl Zeiss glass it just needs to have at least one element made from a Zeiss formulation of glass.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="stevemark"]
Alsatian2017 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Raxar wrote:
a

S


Recently, i was stumbling over an old test of 50/55 mm lenses with 1.2 made by the German magazine ColorFoto in the late seventies. Of the two tested Canon lenses (55 mm f/1.2 and 55 mm f/1.2 Aspherical) the cheaper one without aspherical elements tested even slightly better than the "luxury" version.

These Test, probably by Walter E. Schön, were the very best at the time. Nevertheless i don't trust them, especially when f1.2 lenses were involved: The average deviation of the film from the ideal "flat" position was way higher than the depth-of-field at f1.2.


Alsatian2017 wrote:

BTW, the aspherical versions were mainly designed to produce better images of light sources (night cityscapes and astrophotography) without coma tails (Noct- Nikkor, Noctilux, etc.) but otherwise they were not supposed to be sharper than the standard versions.

Are you sure?

S



Yes, you're right about the film flatness, but I remember him writing about this topic in the mentionned test series. He rejected and ordered to repair several test bodies since the latter didn't manage to keep the film perfectly flat. And he took measures to obtain near perfect flatness with the select bodies (what exactly I can't remember but i guess he took a frame immediately afterhaving advanced the film...).



You can never be sure of anything involved with classic lenses Wink