View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:14 pm Post subject: Have a look at a nice 28mm. Which one is this? |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I am surprised by the quality of this 28mm lens. Lot of finesse to my eyes. It is a Minolta. What are your bets about the version?
[img][/url]DSC00131ra_01 by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img] _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have three different MF Minolta 28s and the AF version and they are all very good lenses, so I don't care about versions. to me, they are all good, capable lenses. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2491
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Minolta MC Rokkor 28mm SI 2,5 or Minolta MD III 28mm 3,5
after investigating your flickr album list :p _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 551 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: Have a look at a nice 28mm. Which one is this? |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
I am surprised by the quality of this 28mm lens. Lot of finesse to my eyes. It is a Minolta. What are your bets about the version?
|
1:2,5? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
If i'm not wrong, the rendering seems to be of the MC 2,5.
The yellowed Sky tell me that, I guess. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
It is not.
I just bought a MDIII 28 2,8. And I am surprised.
It is the 5/5 version.
I bought it on the Internet on a deceptive description where it was listed as MDIII 28 2,0 at 85 euros.
I placed the bid immediately since I could not pass the ridiculous price.
I was disappointed opening the box and decided rather than giving a call to the seller to test it a bit.
Central sharpness was outstanding.A little less so on the right side of the frame and worse on the left. Not a good start.
Took another 28 and the left was still not good.
Changed the adapter and same outcome.
I checked then the screws of my A7II mount and one of them needed less than a quarter turn.
Tested again and it was fine.
Long story short the 28 2,8 5/5 is not a lesser lens. The apparent reduction of complexity of the lens has been somewhat compensated.
I have never seen such level of finesse and microcontrast on a wide angle.
However the bokeh is less interesting than the one of the 28 2,5.
Colors and tones are way ahead of those of MDIII 28 3,5 which I respect very much. Admittedly you can tweak these in post processing but it is so nice to see a nice result at the opening of a file.
I know I have overpaid but I am not calling the seller. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 551 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Amazing IQ, BTW.
What aperture? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
If my recollection is correct F4,5 or f5,6 _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Could you show a picture of the lens? _________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
This is not mine, which is mint, but I found this pic on the web.
Note the plastic ring around the front lens and the IR red dot nearer to f8 on the focus scale. These two points allow to make a difference with the 7/7 version.
_________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 Posts: 2463 Location: NC, USA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
MDiii 28mm f2.8 7/7 serial number starts with 8.
5/5 version starts with 9. _________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
This is not mine, which is mint, but I found this pic on the web.
Note the plastic ring around the front lens and the IR red dot nearer to f8 on the focus scale. These two points allow to make a difference with the 7/7 version.
|
This is the same as my one. Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).
_________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 Posts: 2463 Location: NC, USA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
The bottom pic is a MDii 7/7.
Edit..
When I bought most of my Minolta glass cheap, this lens was harder to find in the US market. I still haven't added one to my collection. _________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
walter g wrote: |
MDiii 28mm f2.8 7/7 serial number starts with 8.
5/5 version starts with 9. |
No. This is an urban legend. I have half a dozen MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5]. Some have a serial nr starting with 8, some with 9.
Below the two variants. First the [7/7]:
And now the [5/5]:
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote: |
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).
|
Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
DigiChromeEd wrote: |
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).
|
Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).
S |
LOL, it says Rokkor on the name ring, so it's not a Celtic. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 Posts: 2463 Location: NC, USA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
DigiChromeEd wrote: |
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).
|
Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).
S |
LOL, it says Rokkor on the name ring, so it's not a Celtic. |
Ian, I'm mistaken. That is not a MDii, it is a Celtic lens someone put a MD W name ring on.
The way to tell, is the red dot is painted on. The grip is definitely a Celtic grip, and the ft numbers are the wrong color for a MD W lens, atleast the ones I've seen.
I do have the Celtic version. _________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10539 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I must have missed when it became okay to use anothers photo without attribution, and to use photos "taken" outright from "the internet" which doesn't own anything itself but connects people who do have ownership. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
walter g wrote: |
Ian, I'm mistaken. That is not a MDii, it is a Celtic lens someone put a MD W name ring on.
The way to tell, is the red dot is painted on. The grip is definitely a Celtic grip, and the ft numbers are the wrong color for a MD W lens, atleast the ones I've seen.
I do have the Celtic version. |
Interesting, why would they do that - to increase it's sale value?
If everything about the lens is consistent with a Celtic apart from the name ring, then that does seem the logical conclusion - that the ring was changed. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 Posts: 2463 Location: NC, USA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
Stephen, thanks. Every copy I've ever checked on ebay. The serial number trick has worked. Guess it was just bad luck I hadn't found a copy that didn't. _________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
walter g wrote: |
Stephen, thanks. Every copy I've ever checked on ebay. The serial number trick has worked. Guess it was just bad luck I hadn't found a copy that didn't. |
I know everybody says so - and in fact I did rely on that information, confidently ordering MD-III 2.8/28mm lenses with the proper starting number (to get a [7/7] MD-III). However, that didn't work - i constantly got [5/5] lenses, both with starting "8" and "9" serials.
In fact, here in Switzerland it's almost impossible to find a [7/7] MD-III. I'd even guess that the local Minolta representatives never ever got a batch of MD-III [7/7] lenses ...
Those "8" and "9" MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5] lenses are somewhere in a box in th attic; over the weekend I'll have time to make some images to prove my point.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I have noted two points that might be of interest:
- In strong backlit scenes there are some CA wide open, quite none closed down one stop,
- It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know. |
This is absolutely normal, no two lenses are exactly the same focal length, rather, there is a spread of values, therefore a nominally 28mm lens could be +-a few fractions of a mm off that nominal figure. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
I have noted two points that might be of interest:
- In strong backlit scenes there are some CA wide open, quite none closed down one stop,
- It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know. |
It's quite common that lens manufacturers "crop" the focal length and the brightest f-value. Accoring to some international guidelines the values should be +/- 5% of the nominal value.
Of course a five element 2.8/28mm is more difficult to calculate than a seven element 2.8/28mm or a five element 3.5/28mm. One way to facilitate a proper correction is to limit the angle of view (wideangles) or to increase the angle of view (telephoto lenses).
The Zeiss Jena Sonnar 3.5/135mm, for instance, is closer to 130mm than to 135mm. The Minolta AF 2.8/180mm, too, is closer to 190mm than to 200mm.
However, the sample variation of a given optical construction is nowhere near 5% or "a few mm".
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Lumens pixel, it's an esthetically impressive shot, congrats.
Sharpness wise and as for coulour rendition it has much to do with an MD 3.5/28 I used. That's pretty intriguing what you say about a specially refined character of the image. I was asking myself if it was worth to add a 2.8 version to the list, as I already have a 3.5 one.
As far as I understood, you've made a series of the same or similar shots with both lenses. Could you put here a double shot, that would give a perfect idea of what you are pointing out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|