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

4 short macro lenses compared, surprising results!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Crazy Leica Fox wrote:
Thank you guys for all this work comparing macros! I wanted to make a comparison between my Zeiss Milvus 50mm/2 and OM Zuiko 50mm/2, since some people claim the older Olympus is superior, but it turned out I got a bad copy of that pricey, vintage optic that is blurry around the edges at all distances and apertures. Crying or Very sad


Wide open that wouldn't surprise me ... but stopped down?
That said, I have tested three copies of the Zuiko 4/75-150mm, and all were ... abysmal ... and my Zuiko 3.5/21mm never gets really sharp in the corners as well (on 24 MP FF). I'm pretty sure that's not a "bad copy" since the Zuiko 3.5/21mm is a) much smaller and b) has less lenses than its competitors. It would be a big surprise if that would lead to the same performance ...


OK - now let's look at the Micro-Nikkors! First the venerable Micro Nikkor 3.5/50mm which was one of the first dedicated macro lenses for the 24x36mm format. It performs pretty well (nearly identical as the Canon / Minolta 3.5/50mm Macro lenses). The f3.5 Micro-Nikkor is a [5/4] Xenotar formula, while the Canon and the Minolta are [6/4] formulas. The Nikkor has a smaller angle of view, and therefore five lenses (instead of six) are sufficient.




The later Micro Nikkor AiS 2.8/55mm doesn't live up to its reputation, at least not wide open. Since Casper has come to the same conclusion, and since other contemporary f2.8 macros with (double) floating focusing have similar problems, I'm pretty sure the results shown here are valid. The lens tested here as a very stiff focusing, typical for many of the 2.8/55mm Micro Nikkors. Those which have no stiff focusing usually have a stuck aperture instead ... pretty annoying (I have three samples of the Micro Nikkor 2.8/55, all with problems). Nevertheless this lens was an extreme "longseller" and available from Nikon until 2021!



The AF Micro Nikkor 2.8/60mm has an even longer focal length (which facilitates the optical construction). Nevertheless it has similiar performance problems as the AiS 2.8/55mm Micro Nikkor. It goes directly from infinity to 1:1 however (as the Minolta AF and the Sony AL).


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting comparison, Stephan.

My p.c. 55 f3.5 micro may be the version just before the "K"- I'll have to look it up when there's time.
I also have the plain single coated p. f3.5 variant here.
Incidentally, under full extension, both seem to perform better at f5.6 than f8 in my somewhat limited testing.
I'll look into this more after the holidays.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

The later Micro Nikkor AiS 2.8/55mm doesn't live up to its reputation, at least not wide open. Since Casper has come to the same result, and since other contemporary f2.8 macros with (double) folating focusing have similar problems, I'm pretty sure the results shown here are valid. The lens tested here as a very stiff focusing, typical for many of the 2.8/55mm Micro Nikkors. Those which have no stiff focusing usually have a stuck aperture instead ... pretty annoying (I have three sample of the Micro Nikkor 2.8/55, all with problems). Nevertheless this lens was an extreme "longseller" and available from Nikon until 2021!


True, mine had stiff focusing as well. I had one before, and that one had a slow aperture. On top of that, it is not an easy lens to service. The several Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5's I tried thusfar had no issues.

Personal favorite of mine remains the Yashica ML. Small, fast, sharp wide open, smooth mechanics.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now two Pentax lenses - the (slightly) radioactive Asahi (Pentax) S-M-C Takumar 4/50mm Macro first! This one is - like the Konica AR 3.5/50mm (and the Canon FL 3.5/50mm Macro and the Yashica ML 4/55mm, BTW) - a simple Tessar. "Simple" may be a bit misleading though; thoriated lenses usually were high index / low dispersion, and using such expensive glass in a slow "normal" lens should give pretty decent results. And it does in fact! At least for the 1:5 scale tested here it is one of the better lenses. Of course most f2.8 lenses would look much better if tested at f4 ...



Then the Pentax-A 2.8/50mm, a nice and small f2.8 Macro lens which goes to 1:2. Its optical construction resembles the Canon FD/nFD 3.5/50mm and the Yashica ML 2.8/55mm, and the performance of these lenses at 1:5 is comparable.



PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, looks good indeed!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally the last lens: Auto Macro Topcor RE 3.5/58mm. This one is - like the Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55mm - a [5/4] Xenotar construction. The Topcor performs pretty well at infinity (http://www.artaphot.ch/topcon-re/re-auto-topcor-lenses/488-re-auto-topcor-58mm-f35-macro), and the same can be said about its resolution at 1:5. Its corners are slightly soft wide open, but the resolution is really good.



To sum it up - at f8 all nineteen lenses tested have a very good resolution over the entire field and incuding the extreme corners.

Wide open nearly all f4 and f3.5 macro lenses perform pretty well (only exception being my sample of the Mamiya Sekor CS 3.5/50mm).

Some f2.8 Macro lenses such as the Minolta AF 2.8/50mm, the Nikkro AiS 2.8/55mm and the AF Nikkor 2.8/60mm however do have a slightly lower corner resolution at f2.8. Other f2.8 macro lenses such as the Pentax-A 2.8/50mm, the Sony AL 2.8/50mm, the Vivitar (Komine) 2.8/55mm and the Yashica ML 2.8/55mm do not suffer from such problems.

S


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all your efforts Stephan. Plenty of good macro lenses to choose from. Interesting how similar most of them are in terms of performance, at least in these tests.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for all your efforts Stephan. Plenty of good macro lenses to choose from. Interesting how similar most of them are in terms of performance, at least in these tests.


It doesn't really surprise me. The tested scale (1:5) is pretty close to 1:10 for which probably most of these lenses were optimized. A good performance at f3.5 or f4 seems to have been feasible. These little lenses were in fact earning a lot of money back in the days. A quite successful Swiss photographer (successful enough to have his own USD 1 mio custom built camera) told me how important all the reproduction work was. Many, many small jobs every days - copying this and duplicating that -, but in sum quite a lot of money to earn. And he told me that - while using Nikon gear for "outdoor" work - he had always been relying on Minolta for the reproduction work.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3