TEST 2/50mm: Mamiya, Minolta, Nikkor

[stevemark]

While updating my website with reliable information on Mamiya lenses I did a quick comparison of four 2/50mm lenses:

* Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1:2 f=50mm
* Mamiya-Sekor E 50mm 1:2 S
* Minolta MD-III 2/50mm
* Nikkor "K" 2/50mm

CLICK FOR FULL RESOLUTION
(BEST TO DOWNLOAD AND LOOK AT IT USING e. g. PHOTOSHOP)



It's pretty amazing to see how well the Nikkor (in its "K" variant) is performing - especially since it was computed in the early 1960s. Interestinlgy, the earlier Mamiya Auto Sekor 2/50mm (also a 1960s lens) has quite similar properties as the Nikkor. Didn't Mamiya closely cooperate with Nikon back then, producing the "Nikkorex" ...? Maybe they learned also something about normal lenses from Nikon ...!?!
In the mid-1960s the f2.0 normal lenses still were regarded as the "top quality normal lens", better than the f1.4 and f1.2 lenses, and much better than the f2.8 Tessar type lenses (more on that later).

Anyway - fifteen years later Mamyia would produce another 2/50mm lens, this time clearly a budget lens. Knowing that Mamiya is famous for their normal lenses, I was a bit surprised to the slightly lower performance of the Mamiya-Sekor 2/50mm S lens. There's a simple explanation to that: Mamiya chose to make an excellent "real world" lens, thus allowing for some field curvature and get really great performance for "non-flat" subjects. Look at this:



It's obvious that - as long as we ignore field curvature which is hardly an issue when shooting reportage in available light - the Sekor E 2/50mm is an excellent lens and beats the Nikkor when it comes to contrast and details at f2.

The Minolta MD-III 2/50mm (not the same computation as the earlier MC and MD-I 2/50mm!) clearly was constructed as a budget lens as well - that was even mentioned as the main goal in the corresponding patents! Nevertheless Minolta managed to make a small 2/50mm lens that had well balanced image properties at f2, and is really excellent in the f5.6 to f11 range (less CAs than the faster Minolta lenses, and virtually no distortion at all [about 0.1%]).

Now let's go back to the Tessar. Both the eastern (Carl Zeiss Jena) as well as the western Tessars/Xenars (Zeiss Oberkochen, Schneider) were the most common German normal lenses around 1955-1960. Of course they were always promoted as "high quality", "Eye of the Eagle" ("Adlerauge") and the like. In reality however the Planar type f2 lenses mainily computed in Japan around 1960 were better - much better. Just look at these test shots from a 1975 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50mm:



The Tessar (and the Xenar as well, BTW) never really gets good enough for 24 MP FF. While in the Planar constructions shown above the aberrations are contained to the corners (90% of the image is very good even at f2.8 ), the Tessar type results in pretty visible aberrations ove much larger areas, even stopped down to f8 !

So yes, all the 2/50mm are still well suited for 24 MP (and even 43 MP) FF sensors.

1) Mamiya Auto Sekor and Nikkor: slightly lower contrast wide open, but very pleasing balance of the aberrations; excellent at f5.6, no CAs

2) Mamiya Sekor E 2/50mm: high contrast and high resolution even at f2, but visible field curvature (no issue for available light reportage), excellent at f5.6

3) Minolta MD-III 2/50mm: slightly lower corner resolution / contrast wide open, excellent at f5.6, and extremely low distortion!

S

[eggplant]

[caspert79]

Thanks, very interesting.

The Mamiya Auto Sekor 50mm f/2 is a very nice character lens as well IMO:

AutoMamiya50f2DSC07950 by devoscasper, on Flickr
AutoMamiya50f2DSC07944 by devoscasper, on Flickr
AutoMamiya50f2DSC07952 by devoscasper, on Flickr

No experience with this particular Nikkor; is it optically similar to the Ai(s) 50/2?

[lumens pixel]

I could not comment on the comparison since I only own the MDIII 50 2,0. I am a little surprised that the MDIII does not rank better but your pics tell the story. I have often realized that some lenses while not perfect in the extreme corners are fantastic performers in the angles and the rest of the field (let us say 95%) and I would prefer such a lens to an excellent performer in the extreme corners but less extraordinary on 95% of the field.

For example my MDIII 28 2,0 is better than the MDIII 28 3,5 except in the extreme corners.

This is to say that my MDIII 50 2,0 is at least as good as, and in reality better than Canon FD 50 1,4 and 1,8 and Minolta MDIII 50 1,4 and 1,7.

So my question is : if you ignore extreme corners and judge at 90% of the diagonal of the frame would you still have the same hierarchy? If yes I am doomed and must also become a Nikonist.

[caspert79]

Maybe useful to post a comparison I did earlier between several Mamiya lenses. They're all pretty good performers. Note this is on Sony A7R2 (42+ mp), so crops look softer than on Sony A7.

comp14 by devoscasper, on Flickr
com1718 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp2 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp28 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp56 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
comp11 by devoscasper, on Flickr

And most of them good performers wide open (click for full size):
Mamiya Sekor E 50/1.4:
DSC03431 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya Sekor E 50/1.7:
DSC03953 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.8:
AutoMamiyaSekor5518DSC08216 by devoscasper, on Flickr

[stevemark]

[lumens pixel]

[quote="stevemark"]

[caspert79]

[quote="lumens pixel"]

[stevemark]

[lumens pixel]

Very interesting and relieving info. I am not committing to the Nikon system yet. There is ton of finesse to extract from any of these lenses anyhow. In most cases if you are not using 100 iso and a tripod you won't see much differences. For the jpeg shooters there is still the Minolta colours to influence the choice.

[caspert79]

There are several standard lenses to choose from that will deliver pretty excellent corner-to-corner image quality. In some of those lenses, you need some more stopping down than in others. For me, this is usually not a big deal. High ISO performance of modern cameras is so much better than it used to be.

[papasito]

Very, very interesting comparison and commentaries.

Nice to add the Minolta MDIII 50/1,4 TO THE mamiya one.

[Doc Sharptail]

[stevemark]

[visualopsins]

[stevemark]

[KEO]

I own the Nikkor and the Minolta.

After shooting them side-by-side I was surprised by how much sharper I found the Nikkor to be. The only area where I would say the Minolta is better is wide-open bokeh - that's really nice.

The humble 50 f2 is one of Nikon's best ever lenses.

[lumens pixel]

That Nikon bokeh must be special. The MDIII 50 2,0 bokeh is a little bit nervous. I have realised that it is a characteristic of a lot of lenses that provide good contrast wide open.

[martinsmith99]

Great comparison.