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

comparison of 7 35mm lenses on A7
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:23 am    Post subject: comparison of 7 35mm lenses on A7 Reply with quote
test photos taken near to close focus distance on Sony A7 in RAW, converted to jpeg in LR without editing, the test images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuanslenstests/collections/72157671994722645/

the lenses compared, in order as seen below:
Canon LTM f1.8/35mm, Canon LTM f2/35mm, Auto Takumar f3.5/35mm, Auto Takumar f2.3/35mm, Super Takumar f3.5/35mm, Jupiter-12 f2.8/35mm, RE,Topcor f2.8/35mm

[url=https://flic.kr/p/KH4b2i]
35mm lens test[/url] by andreas, on Flickr

the full frame: ( @f4 Canon LTM 2/35 )
ltm20.35.40-01530 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

difference of oof rendering / bokeh is striking, 100% crops:
e.g. Jupiter-12 @f2.8
Jup28.35.28-01557 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

RE,Topcor @f2.8
topcor28.35.28-01547 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

and Auto Takumar 2.3/35 @f2.8
ATak23.35.28-01553 by kuuan's lens tests, on Flickr

Last edited by kuuan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:08 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, it's certainly easy to see why the Minolta 35mm 1.8/2.8 gained the reputation it did. Like 1 small Thanks for this.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vivitar 35mm f1.9 still better than all..



PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for testing! Taks are great imo


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice test!

Cheap 35/3.5 Takumar holds really well. Topcor's corners are a big let down after reading so much praise on them.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lots and lots of work to produce this, Kuuan. My admiration for your patience. In the end, I didn't have the attention span to get through them all. Is there a consensus opinion?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes indeed, this was a labor of love.
BTW, there are actually 11 compared in the series on his Flickr.

Besides those mentioned, this includes the Color Minotar 35/2.8 (from a Minox 35 I assume), Steinheil Culmigon 35/4.5, S-M-C Takumar 35/2, and Pentax FA 35/2 (an AF lens).

Some observations -
Critical difference at the corners at comparable max apertures (f/4 in this case) show the main differences.
There is very similar performance by most, I expect that it would be quite difficult if not impossible to tell them apart in practice with varied subjects.

The main exception are those that do not come up to the general high standard.

There are some lighting differences, which one has to discount in judging the images.
Also, of course, everything is much better stopped down.

- The Jupiter-12, the Steinheil, the Minotar obviously have very poor corners or have substantial field curvature. These simply don't come up to the general high standard of this group.

- Biggest surprise was the S-M-C Takumar 35/2 - there is some substantial field curvature going on there, the house corner is rather blurred, while the eaves behind are sharper. And this is at f/4. The Takumar 35/2.3 is nearly identical.

- The Canon ltm 35/1.8 does not distinguish itself, the Canon ltm 35/2 is considerably better. This is good buying advice if you want a Canon ltm 35, all else being equal. Interesting to me as I'm in the market for one of these.

- Subjectively, the crispness and sharpness competition is won by the Pentax FA 35/2. It may be the lighting or whatever else could be circumstantial. Runner up is the good old Super Takumar 35/3.5

Notable problems -
- The Steinheil seems to have considerable flare.

Bokeh is where much of the differences show up. I wouldn't call any of them particularly smooth.
Subjectively, the Pentax FA 35/2 gives the best results wide open, IMHO.
This is not a cheap lens of course.
However, of these all I only own the humble Super Tak 35/3.5, and with that I do not consider myself ill-equipped!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for that, Luis. Excellent assessment. I particularly agree with your comment about telling the differences in practical use. I may at some point consider a Rokkor or the fast Vivitar, but for now am quite satisfied with my Topcor and Flek.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How do these compare to the Canon FD 35/2.8 or the Minolta MD 35/2.8?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fantastic test..

Thank you!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Yes indeed, this was a labor of love.
BTW, there are actually 11 compared in the series on his Flickr.

Besides those mentioned, this includes the Color Minotar 35/2.8 (from a Minox 35 I assume), Steinheil Culmigon 35/4.5, S-M-C Takumar 35/2, and Pentax FA 35/2 (an AF lens).

Some observations -
Critical difference at the corners at comparable max apertures (f/4 in this case) show the main differences.
There is very similar performance by most, I expect that it would be quite difficult if not impossible to tell them apart in practice with varied subjects.

The main exception are those that do not come up to the general high standard.

There are some lighting differences, which one has to discount in judging the images.
Also, of course, everything is much better stopped down.

- The Jupiter-12, the Steinheil, the Minotar obviously have very poor corners or have substantial field curvature. These simply don't come up to the general high standard of this group.

- Biggest surprise was the S-M-C Takumar 35/2 - there is some substantial field curvature going on there, the house corner is rather blurred, while the eaves behind are sharper. And this is at f/4. The Takumar 35/2.3 is nearly identical.

- The Canon ltm 35/1.8 does not distinguish itself, the Canon ltm 35/2 is considerably better. This is good buying advice if you want a Canon ltm 35, all else being equal. Interesting to me as I'm in the market for one of these.

- Subjectively, the crispness and sharpness competition is won by the Pentax FA 35/2. It may be the lighting or whatever else could be circumstantial. Runner up is the good old Super Takumar 35/3.5

Notable problems -
- The Steinheil seems to have considerable flare.

Bokeh is where much of the differences show up. I wouldn't call any of them particularly smooth.
Subjectively, the Pentax FA 35/2 gives the best results wide open, IMHO.
This is not a cheap lens of course.
However, of these all I only own the humble Super Tak 35/3.5, and with that I do not consider myself ill-equipped!


right! - now it is 11 lenses! I had added 4 more lenses later, as you already listed, Steinheil Muenchen Culmigon f4.5/35mm, Color-Minotar f2.8/35mm ( taken from a Minox ), S-M-C Takumar f2/35mm and the AF lens Pentax FA f2/35mm

and right, as an important note:
the images taken with these 4 lenses that had been added later had been taken on a different day with different lighting!!
expossure also is a bit brigther. I think specially the left top corner had been more challendging for these later 4 lenses.

I agree with your assessment, specially about the limitations of the J-12, Minotar and Steinheil.

As for the Canon LTMs, the f2 is the more modern rendering lens with rather good contrast, it's a good lens that sometimes is nicknamed the "Japanese Summicron" for good reasons. The f1.8 has very strong field curverture, less contrasty pastel colors, and contrast is more easily lost when used against light, the f2 isn't all that great in that last respect neither. The f1.8 is a very likeable lens though that can give very dinstinct, lovely results, but the f2 clearly is the more generally useable lens.
my photos taken with these two lenses may show that difference and may be of interest:
my photos taken with the Canon LTM f1.8/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644035549111/
and those taken with the Canon LTM f2/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644114143659/
( I suppose that a "younger" CV will have better coating, be more contrasty and most likely have better corners )

cheers, andreas


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Lots and lots of work to produce this, Kuuan. My admiration for your patience. In the end, I didn't have the attention span to get through them all. Is there a consensus opinion?


thank you Woodrim. Wasn't all that much work, much more work was my recent test of 32 normal lenses, also on Sony A7: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuanslenstests/collections/72157670921126335/
as for opinions, personally I can't do with opinions like " this one is best, or any other being better than all" asf. ( If using such wordings than at least I'd need specifics as to better in which sense ) What I find more important and what I hope this test can show is that characteristics are distinct.

y wrote:
Nice test!

Cheap 35/3.5 Takumar holds really well. Topcor's corners are a big let down after reading so much praise on them.


the 3.5/35 Takumar is a good buy for sure, and well, since Topcors had been discovered in this forum imho they have been overly praised. Wide open sharpness and corners of RE,Topcor 1.8/58, in my "normal lens test", imo isn't very impressive neither, stopped down sharpness is quite impressive though.
again the link to both the tests, the 35mm and normal lens tests: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuanslenstests/collections/


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
leemik wrote:
fantastic test..

Thank you!


thank's Smile


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Much appreciated Andreas.
Thank you
OH


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Andreas.

I wholeheartedly agree with Luis regarding the Pentax FA 35.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kuan, thanks for the very informative test.

May I ask you what's type of adapter you're using with the topcor 35 f2.8? I have one, but the exaktar to Nex adapter does not fit my lens. And, also it makes the focus ring on my topcor lens very stiff.

If you can help letting me know the brand of adapter you use, that's even better. Thanks again Kuan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1