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

What's the best ~75-150mm zoom lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
I'm looking further to buy a 75-150/200 zoom and can't decide , rokkor 75-150 almost impossible to reach nowadays , mamiya ze 75-150/200 no info about it , Canon nFD 70-200 might be the easiest to find , but CA consistent. So, could you guys help me to decide ? Thanks


I have tested a few vintage zooms in the 75-150mm range - side-by-side on 24 MP FF Sony A7II. Always looking at "sharpness" in the infinity range, and at the short as well as the medium and the long focal lengths.

Canon nFD 4.5/70-150mm: similar excellent image quality as the Minolta; larger and slightly slower, MFD 1.5m. One-ring zoom. Built-in hood. Prone to fogging!! Recommended for landscapes.

Konica AR 4/75-150mm: As good as Minolta/Canon at 75mm and 100mm, but worse at 150mm (more CAs). Smallest of the bunch. Best MFD at 0.8m! Built-in hood.

Mamiya Sekor E 3.8/70-150mm: not tested extensively; corner resolution a bit below the Canon and the Minolta, slightly larger than Minolta (same size as Nikon); MFD 1.0m. One-ring zoom. Built-in hood.

Minolta MD 4/75-150mm: similar excellent image quality as the Canon, small and lightweight; slightly faster than Canon, MFD 1.2m. One-ring zoom. No built-in hood. Recommended for landscapes.

Nikon E 3.5/75-150mm: less corner resolution than Canon/Minolta; less contrast wide open. Slightly larger than Minolta (same size as Mamiya); one stop faster than Canon, MFD 1.0m. One-ring zoom. No built-in hood. Recommended for portrait (f3.5, MFD of 1m, lower contrast).

Olympus Zuiko OM 4/75-150mm: same small size as Minolta. lowest resolution by far (really bad; two copies of the lens tested). Two-ring zoom. Built-in hood. Not recommended for landscapes.

Stephan




from left to right: Konica AR 4/70-150mm, Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, Olympus Zuikon OM 4/75-150mm, Mamyia Sekor E 3.8/70-150mm, Nikon E 3.5/75-150mm, Canon nFD 4.5/70-150mm


PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Steve, do you know anything about mamiya ze 70-150/200 zooms? They seem pretty small and light, besides, theirs primes seem pretty nice also, but not much info regarding ze zooms . And they are also cheap,just like nFD


PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thank you Steve, do you know anything about mamiya ze 70-150/200 zooms? They seem pretty small and light, besides, theirs primes seem pretty nice also, but not much info regarding ze zooms . And they are also cheap,just like nFD


I have re-tested the six lenses mentioned above at f=70mm (75mm), f=100mm and f=150mm. Infinity range, both wide open and at f11. That gives a quite good overview if you intend to use one of these zooms for landscapes. Images will be published probably tomorrow.

Short summary from this new test (24 MP FF as usual):

1) Minolta is excellent both wide open and stopped down to f11
2) Wide open, the Canon and Konica are slightly inferior, especially at f=100mm (Canon) and f=150mm (Konica); stopped down they are very good
3) Mamiya is excellent at f=70mm; wide open it slightly behind the Minolta both at f=100mm as well as at f=150mm; stopped down it is excellent. Wide open at f=150mm, the center has a lower constrast (good for portrait).
4) Wide open, the Nikon has softer corners at all three focal lengths; stopped down it is excellent. Wide open at f=150mm, the center has a slightly lower constrast (good for portrait) and some longitudinal CAs.
5) The Olympus is abysmal. Wide open, there's no way to get a sharp center at any focal length (!!); the corners are quite bad even at f11.

I have tested three sample of the Olympus, all with disgusting (though differing!) results. Two of those copies are still in my possession - an earlier "chrome nose" and a later "black nose". Unless I was extremely unlucky to get three bad samples in a row (which seems highly unlikely), the Olympus simply was a grossly inferior construction.

S


PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's the first part of the test - those six lenses mentioned above at their shortest focal length (70mm or 75mm).

As usual these are 100% crops from the corners of 24 MP FF JPGs out of the Sony A7II.

PLEASE CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION!






At their shortest focal length, theses lenses (apart fro the Olympus and to some extent the Nikon E) are performing remarkably well.

The best image quality wide open comes from the Minolta (very good resolution, good contrast, no CAs).
The Canon and the Konica may have slightly less contrast, and the Mamiya sligtly les resolution - but that's really pixel-peeping, and it may well be due to sample variation: Vintage zooms are more prone to sample variation than the averag vintage prime lens.

The Nikon E has lower resolution in the corners (field curvature?) and more pronounced vignetting, but it's also 1/2 - 1 stop faster than the other lenses.

The Olympus looks quite a bit worse that the others. What makes this lens useless on 24 MP FF cameras, however, is the fact that its resoltion is bad all over the entire image! I have never seen another vintage lens from the 1970s that has similar problems. As mentioned in an earlier posting, I have tested three samples of the Zuiko 4/75-75-150mm, all with very bad results.

Here's a 100% crop from the center of the Nikon E and the Olympus 75-150mm lenses, both taken wide open (f3.5 with the Nikon, f4 with the Zuiko):



Stopped down all lenses (apart from the Olympus, obviously) perform really well - the Canon having a bit less contrast than the others, something I have seen also in other test with other Canon lenses.

I'm a bit puzzled about the Olympus. Is there a common failure mode for these lenses, e. g. a plastic part in the zoom mechanism that fails (bearings, maybe)? While Olumpus MF gear is not common here in Switzerland, the Oly 75-150mm is readily available at any time, usually in several samples, on local online auction platforms. Canon and Nikon are rarer, and Minolta / Konica can't be found easily. This suggests that the Oly isn't really a keeper ...

Results at f=100mm and f=150mm will follow tomorrow.

S


PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The results of the Oly are very mysterious indeed. I have a hard time believing that Olympus would produce such a bad performing lens. It must be some kind of deterioration.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
The results of the Oly are very mysterious indeed. I have a hard time believing that Olympus would produce such a bad performing lens. It must be some kind of deterioration.


I'm not completely sure - there are some other zoom lenses from the 1960s with similarly bad performance.

The Oly 75-150 is a much older design than, say, the corresponding Minolta and the Canon zooms. And besides this: The (much hyped) Olympus 3.5/21mm, for instance, certainly is the worst of my many OEM superwides. Olympus obviously did make compromises when designing their lenses. Small size and high performance are very difficult to achieve simultaneously ...

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you very much for your effort and your time , i basically cover most of this focal length with primes ,but sometimes I really miss a zoom, to be honest. Besides , for shooting children around, I've noticed it's easier to shoot at F4, because they are .....kids (exceptions applies to tranquil portraits,I was referring to walking and playing around). Your pics do confirm Minolta should be the way to go, but is not easy to reach nowadays for a good price. What about bokeh on these 3.8-4.5 range, which one is smoother ?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thank you very much for your effort and your time , i basically cover most of this focal length with primes ,but sometimes I really miss a zoom, to be honest. Besides , for shooting children around, I've noticed it's easier to shoot at F4, because they are .....kids (exceptions applies to tranquil portraits,I was referring to walking and playing around).


I usually prefer f2.8 and sometimes even f4 for portraits. Most people being portraited are not into a razor-thin depth-of-field ... usually they prefer to
1) to have nose and ears resonably sharp and
2) a calm (blurred) background.

kiddo wrote:
Your pics do confirm Minolta should be the way to go, but is not easy to reach nowadays for a good price.

Wait until you see the other focal lengths Wink

kiddo wrote:
What about bokeh on these 3.8-4.5 range, which one is smoother ?

To be honest - I've never checked their bokeh. I'll try to do a meaningful comparison this afternoon, probably wide open at f=150mm and a distance of 2m (foreground) vs "infinity" (background).


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are the corresponding corner crops at f=100mm:

(CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION)



Quite often zooms are best in their mid-range; corner resolution tends to peak and both CAs and distortion tend to be lowest. The Konica AR 4/70-150mm, the Mamiya Sekor E 3.8/70-150mm, the Minolta 4/75-150mm and the Nikon E 3.5/75-150mm are no exception - they all are remarkably "clean" at f11: good contrast, good resolution in the extreme orners, and virtually no CAs.
The Canon however is a bit inferior, compared to its performance at f=75mm.
The Olympus, again, is far behind - not only in the corners shown here, but in the image center as well, even at f11. Not recommended!!

Wide open, again, the Minolta is best; Nikon and Konica are not far behind, though. Mamiya and Canon lack resoution, and so do the two copies of the Olympus 4/75-150mm tested (silver nose and black nose).

Test at f=150mm will follow tomorrow.

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I remember my 70-15 Kiron being `good enough'. Certainly for film use.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


The (much hyped) Olympus 3.5/21mm, for instance, certainly is the worst of my many OEM superwides. Olympus obviously did make compromises when designing their lenses. Small size and high performance are very difficult to achieve simultaneously ...

S


Thank you for your comment above related to the 21mm Zuiko. I was eyeballing these already and might want to rethink before buying one.

Also thank you for your effort with those test images. I got one Hexanon 70~150 f4 in a "job lot of vintage lenses" for about EUR 12,-- (the whole bundle held 20 lenses) and it is in pristine mechanical condition, though having some fungus on the rearmost two elements and fingerprints somewhere else on an inner element. Hope I can clean that out sooner or later. Still, considering those flaws, the few test images I´ve done with it look reasonably ok.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both Tamron (20a/3.5) and Vivitar 70-150mm 3.8 (Kiron) have great smooth bokeh and are very compact and cheap.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:

Thank you for your comment above related to the 21mm Zuiko. I was eyeballing these already and might want to rethink before buying one.


The 20mm always was my most used focal length, and therefore I know quite many of the classical 20mm and 21mm designs - starting from Berteles legendary Zeiss Biogon 4.5/21mm and going to modern lenses such as as the C Biogon 4.5/21mm and the Loxia 2.8/21mm. I probably have more than 20 lenses with that focal length. All my comments are based on using these lenses for landscape purposes which means "infinity" and "corner-to-corner sharpness".

The Zuiko 3.5/21mm is extremely small, and it consists of only seven lenses. It's not surprising that its correction is far from perfect. Its corners are completely lacking any resolution at f3.5, and are not good even at f11. Its useful angle is more that of a 24mm or even a 25mm lens!!

Lenses such as the Topcor RE 4/20mm and the Konica Hexanon 4/21mm are much better corrected (although not as good as modern superwides). If you are loooking for a reasonably small and good superwide I would recommend the Ai Nikkor 3.5/20mm (NOT the older 3.5/20mm which is quite big!). It is as sharp as the AiS 2.8/20mm, and often overlooked. Another possibility would be the Minolta AF 2.8/20mm. It is as good as the two Nikkors mentioned, but currently much cheaper (around CHF/EUR/USD 100.-- here in Switzerland). Its barrel is very well built and completely made out of metal.

ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:

Also thank you for your effort with those test images. I got one Hexanon 70~150 f4 ... having some fungus on the rearmost two elements and fingerprints somewhere else on an inner element. Hope I can clean that out sooner or later. Still, considering those flaws, the few test images I´ve done with it look reasonably ok.

So it seems someone has messed around with it before ... hopefully not misaligned ?!?

D1N0 wrote:
Both Tamron (20a/3.5) and Vivitar 70-150mm 3.8 (Kiron) have great smooth bokeh and are very compact and cheap.
I neither own the Tamron nor the Kiron / Vivitar ... but just discovered a Pentax-M and a Tokina in this range! Should have included them as well, but I'll not repete the entire test. I may shoot a few images tomorrow though and write a few words about their performance, compared to the other lenses tested above.

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wonder how many samples of Minolta have you tested to get this so much better than all the others , at least wide open ,there is quite a lot more details on corner crops


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Wonder how many samples of Minolta have you tested to get this so much better than all the others , at least wide open ,there is quite a lot more details on corner crops


I can't speak for stevemark, but I have three samples of the Minolta 75-150 lens and I can't really tell them apart by performance. They are the sharpest zooms I have used so far (which in no way implies sharper zooms do not exist; my experience is mostly with Minolta's and some Tokinas). The Minolta's relatively sharp corners stevemark observes even wide-open at f/4 are consistent with my experience.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the Minolta is a great lens and very practical because it's so small and light.

I had it, but then I got the Contax-Zeiss 80-200. Even nicer rendering, equally sharp, goes to 200mm, has even shorter MFD.

So unfortunately the Minolta had to go (because I simply don't use it anymore).


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm familiar with c/y Zeiss ,and I've had a look to that one ,but It seems it's not an light lens to carry around half day here and there . In fact ,for the first time ,135 sonnar 2.8 convinced me that sometimes, it does pretty well for portraits also (not every one, definitely) , as till now 105 would be the extreme limit FL i would go for famility portraits.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


D1N0 wrote:
Both Tamron (20a/3.5) and Vivitar 70-150mm 3.8 (Kiron) have great smooth bokeh and are very compact and cheap.
I neither own the Tamron nor the Kiron / Vivitar ... but just discovered a Pentax-M and a Tokina in this range! Should have included them as well, but I'll not repete the entire test. I may shoot a few images tomorrow though and write a few words about their performance, compared to the other lenses tested above.

S



There is also a Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8 which is pretty nice, but hard to find cheap. There is one on Dutch Marktplaats right now for 75 Euro if anybody is interested. I can't use F-mount. https://www.marktplaats.nl/v/audio-tv-en-foto/fotografie-lenzen-en-objectieven/m1764719134-tokina-at-x-60-120mm-1-2-8-voor-nikon

The Tokina 75-150mm 3.8 is cheap and easy to find but I don't have it.
I do have the Pentax. It is pretty nice although not the fastest or most compact.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/randomdump/albums/72157709322589381


PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Wonder how many samples of Minolta have you tested to get this so much better than all the others , at least wide open ,there is quite a lot more details on corner crops


Just one. I usually don't buy the same lens twice or three times - but obviously sometimes you get a lens again when buying a set containing interesting stuff. Sometimes I get stuff for free, and of course I don't reject even if I already have a certain lens ...

RokkorDoctor wrote:

I can't speak for stevemark, but I have three samples of the Minolta 75-150 lens and I can't really tell them apart by performance.


That reflects my experience with other Minolta MD lenses. I have compared ten MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses, and about ten MD 35-70mm lenses. Their performance was very consistent. I also did compare seven Minolta AF 28-135mm lenses (an extremely complicated construction for its time; five group zoom), and they were behaving identically. All tested on 24 MP FF.

On the other hand, a set of ten Mamiya 3.5/135mm was a mixed bang (results published here on mflenses). I also have 2-3 samples each of different Konica AR zooms (eg AR 3.5/35-70, AR 3.5/80-200, AR 2.8/35-100), and some have quite visible issues. I have two Zeiss CY 1.7/50mm lenses: different. And two Topcor RE 2.8/10cm (100mm): different as well. These are just a few observations and they are by no means statistically significant, though.

S


PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

The 20mm always was my most used focal length


I´m more interested in wide angle, too. I bought a 21mm f4 Hexanon some two months ago and I was still lucky with the price, I assume, since it was labeled as spare parts only. It´s in perfect working condition though. I still remember what you said once in one of those threads about the 21mm f2.8 Hexanon for what little money you bought yours... one could get the slightest bit jealous Laughing
So I´m in on hurry to get another one, just waiting for a good opportunity. I will certainly keep those recommendations of yours in mind!

stevemark wrote:

So it seems someone has messed around with it before ... hopefully not misaligned ?!?


No, from what I can tell it´s probably fine. Those are from today morning with with 70, 100 and 150mm and f5.6 on Sony A7ii

#1



#2



#3


And that´s how it looks inside. Mr. Green

#4


#5


Looks like my sensor is dirty, too Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
The results of the Oly are very mysterious indeed. I have a hard time believing that Olympus would produce such a bad performing lens. It must be some kind of deterioration.


I'm not completely sure - there are some other zoom lenses from the 1960s with similarly bad performance.

The Oly 75-150 is a much older design than, say, the corresponding Minolta and the Canon zooms. And besides this: The (much hyped) Olympus 3.5/21mm, for instance, certainly is the worst of my many OEM superwides. Olympus obviously did make compromises when designing their lenses. Small size and high performance are very difficult to achieve simultaneously ...

S


Interesting, I didn't know the Zuiko zoom was such an old design but it explains.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's the last series of 100% crops from some of my 70 (75)-150mm vintage zooms:



At f=150mm I would say both the Canon as well as the Minolta are on top. Canon slightly less CAs, and Minolta slightly more detail (especially wide open). The Hexanon has quite a bit of CAs (no wonder - it's much shorter built than e. g. the Canon, and therefore needs higher refracting glass => more prone to CAs). Otherwise it has lots of detail too.

Wide open, the Mamiya and the Nikon E have clearyl less corner resolution compared to Canon / Minolta and Konica, but stopped down to f11 they are as good as the others.

The Olympus, again, doesn't satisfy ... not only in the corners (shown here), but also in the center its resolution simply is missing.


Peronally, I prefer the Minolta and its flawless resolution at all focal lengths and even at f4. The large Canon and the tiny Konica are slightly behind - the Canon especially wide open at around f=100mm, the Konica due to CAs at the long end.

Wide open, the Mamiya as well as the Nikon E have a lower corner resolution than Canon/Konica/Minolta, especially at the longer end (say 100 ... 150mm). Remember that these lenses (ie Mamiya and Nikon E) may be corrected for shorter distances - I simply don't have the means to ensure perfect parallelism between the sensor and a target at closer distances, and therefore I prefer not to publish test results taken at closer distances.

The Olympus is a bit an enigma to me. I've hardly seen any other OEM lens from the 1970s to perform that badly, and I still do not rule out a common failure in all three sample tested. If someone should have a Olympus 4/75-150mm zoom that performs well => please contact me!

S


PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:

Thank you for your comment above related to the 21mm Zuiko. I was eyeballing these already and might want to rethink before buying one.


The 20mm always was my most used focal length, and therefore I know quite many of the classical 20mm and 21mm designs - starting from Berteles legendary Zeiss Biogon 4.5/21mm and going to modern lenses such as as the C Biogon 4.5/21mm and the Loxia 2.8/21mm. I probably have more than 20 lenses with that focal length. All my comments are based on using these lenses for landscape purposes which means "infinity" and "corner-to-corner sharpness".

The Zuiko 3.5/21mm is extremely small, and it consists of only seven lenses. It's not surprising that its correction is far from perfect. Its corners are completely lacking any resolution at f3.5, and are not good even at f11. Its useful angle is more that of a 24mm or even a 25mm lens!!


This is pretty much my experience with this Zuiko, on digital sensors, but I would add that I have never encountered a lens where adding a filter degrades the image to such an extent. My first copy (of two) had an Olympus skylight filter on the front and the lens proved completely unusable until the filter was removed.

That said, without the filter, it’s very usable on film when closed a couple of stops down from wide open.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Since we are discussing the MD 75 150, here is a pic showing the monstrous resolution of that lens. Here 135mm f5,6.

[img]L'hiver | Winter by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Since we are discussing the MD 75 150, here is a pic showing the monstrous resolution of that lens. Here 135mm f5,6.

[img]L'hiver | Winter by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]
Tuzki with lens

This is the Minolta MD 75-150?

I recently acquired this lens and love it so far!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5