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

TEST: 1.4/50mm lenses compared
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:03 pm    Post subject: TEST: 1.4/50mm lenses compared Reply with quote
Today - as requested elsewhere - I have compared the Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm with both the Canon FD "silver nose" and the nFD 1.4/50mm lenses. Since I was at it, I threw a few well known other 1.4/50mm in as well:

* Canon FD 1.4/50mm "silver nose"
* Canon new FD 1.4/50mm
* Konica AR 1.4/50mm II (last version)
* Mamiya Sekor EF 1.4/50mm
* Minolta Rokkor 1.4/50mm (MC-X)
* Nikkor "K" 1.4/50mm
* Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm

Here are some 100% crops from the image center at f1.4:



Corners at f1.4, f2.8 and f5.6 will follow shortly.

S

Last edited by stevemark on Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Almost every time I use a 1.4, I have to quite severely chastise myself for not using a hood.
And they have all been like that for me.

Interesting that a white subject is at image center- a fair test to the equality of these lenses.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now here the corner crops - 24 MP FF Sony A7II as usual, and JPGs from the camera:



DOWNLOAD THE IMAGES ABOVE AND WATCH THEM IN A PROPER IMAGING PROGRAM SUCH AS PHOTOSHOP - THE BROWSER AND THE FORUM SOFTWARE AS WELL AS SOME OTHER "OPTIMIZING" PROCESSES GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND OTHERWISE MAY SEVERELY DISTORT THE ORIGINAL IMAGE QUALITY!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Corners at f2.8:



It's pretty obvious now that the Mamiya Sekor EF (the newest computation of those tested, BTW!) has comparatively little astigmatism and therefore looks as clean at f2.8 as the others at f4 or at f4.5.

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally at f5.6:



All images now look nearly perfect, with lots of details even in extreme corners.

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the test!. Curious how sharpness of your Mamiya compares to the Canon wide open at nearby objects.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Almost every time I use a 1.4, I have to quite severely chastise myself for not using a hood.
And they have all been like that for me.

Interesting that a white subject is at image center- a fair test to the equality of these lenses.

-D.S.


Thanks, I was wondering if a hood was not in-use here.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
some time ago, i´ve got rid of the planar that was nice to use for portraits, instead some other 50´s followed MC rokkor pg (it just doesn´t impress me, don´t know why), FD black nose (my mostly used one together with the FD 85mm 1.8 ), EF Revuenon is always there whenever choosing light equipment (this one i would grab it with the 70-150 mm zoom, competing with FD), later would go the character ones - i have got very nice portraits with most of my ´´fast´´(1.4) fifties, so probably in this field , they would get very close even though never did a side by side comparison (i´m not interested in clinical sharp modern type rendering for my type of photos) .
Thank you for this test, it definitely help someone choose the right lens from a bunch. I know that my FD is a keeper, but was wondering if the early 58mm FL 1.2 would fit me better?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really appreciate you doing this test. The Mamiya Sekor EF really is a performer. Seeing the Zeiss name in the intro, I expected it to do better....one of the more surprising results to me at least.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting. The nfd looks nice. Would have been interested in the results of the minolta 1,4 7/6.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO).

A couple of comments however.

A lot of the time I see differences in performance from each corner of the same lens due to some internal misalignment, tilt, or whatever, in the optics of the lens being tested. So when an identical corner is shown from a series of different lenses it's quite possible that this particular corner might not be representative of the performance of each lens. In other words, this particular corner might be the worst or the best performing corner, instead of an average which truly represents the performance of the lens. Not sure what can be done about that aside from maybe a comment about each lens 'IF' it is in fact slightly misaligned.

Also, it's quite handy to see how such vintage lenses compare with a similar modern lens if possible. For example, I'm quite confident that an identical sample corner image from a Sony/Zeiss FE 50/1.4 ZA would kind of shame these vintage lenses. This Sony 50ZA is actually extremely sharp wide open in the corners (due to an optical design where the mid/outer zone is less sharp than the centre or corners!).

Thanks.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for the test!. Curious how sharpness of your Mamiya compares to the Canon wide open at nearby objects.


You've already answered this question with your test, thankfully!


visualopsins wrote:

Thanks, I was wondering if a hood was not in-use here.


No, I didn't use a hood (which would have been of limited usefulness anyway since there was no direct sunlight reaching the lens). The low contrast has more to do with the weather condition - far less than ideal for such a test, but since I had promised to compare the Mamiya with the two FD/nFD lenses I did it nevertheless. I may repeat it later on (during the next days) if the weather conditions should improve considerably.

kiddo wrote:
I know that my FD is a keeper, but was wondering if the early 58mm FL 1.2 would fit me better?

I have an early FL 1.2/58mm (not the FL 1.2/55!!), and I never was really impressed. As far as I remember the FL 1.2/58 had less detail resolution than the Minolta MC 1.2/58mm and the Nikkor Ai 1.2/55mm. To be fair, the Canon is a few years older than the Minolta and the Nikkor, and during those years (early 1960 vs late 1960s) there was a lot of progress in lens design.

DaveNJ wrote:
Really appreciate you doing this test. The Mamiya Sekor EF really is a performer. Seeing the Zeiss name in the intro, I expected it to do better....one of the more surprising results to me at least.

Yes, that's true. My lens could be an outliner, but then also the CY Distagon 2.8/28mm was far behind the (famous) Pentax SMC 3.5/28mm when I compared them recently. And I have two Zeiss CY 1.7/50mm (an AE and an MM version) which do NOT perform identically. In addition my last Zeiss CY acquisition, the large and well regarded CY 28-85mm, is quite poor at the wide end. And the CY 3.5/200mm Tele Tessar as well as the CY 2.8/180mm Sonnar cannot compete with AD/ED/ULD lenses such as the ED Nikkor AiS 2.8/180mm or the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO. I really like the "feel" of the Zeiss CY lenses, and they are more fun to work with than most other vintage lenses, but their optical performance often is on par with contemporary lenses. Notable exceptions are the 2/28mm Distagon and the 2.8/21mm Distagon as well as the 2.8/35mm PC-Distagon. The Planar 2/100mm seems to be exceptional as well, but I've never used it personally.

lumens pixel wrote:
Very interesting. The nfd looks nice. Would have been interested in the results of the minolta 1,4 7/6.

Yeah, I may include it if better weather conditions allow for a renewed test! I have a Olympus OM 1.4/50mm as well, but it's an eraly (silvernose) lens so probably not as good as the later improved computation.

jjphoto wrote:

A lot of the time I see differences in performance from each corner of the same lens due to some internal misalignment, tilt, or whatever, in the optics of the lens being tested. So when an identical corner is shown from a series of different lenses it's quite possible that this particular corner might not be representative of the performance of each lens. In other words, this particular corner might be the worst or the best performing corner, instead of an average which truly represents the performance of the lens. Not sure what can be done about that aside from maybe a comment about each lens 'IF' it is in fact slightly misaligned.

That's a valid point. I occasionally have checked all four corners of a lens, and as far as I remember the results did never really bother me when looking at primes. I know however that testing vintage zoom lenses can result in pretty noticeable problems. Not only does performance vary a lot over the range (from wide end to long end), but also with distance (e. g. distortion!!), and often the length of an adapter (rarely really precise, often too short) does influence the zooms performance. Manufacturing tolerances are much more visible, resulting in the problems you describe. And a slight internal "wobbling" of the zooming mechanism can easily lead to a variable decentering - something I have even observed on much more modern (and expensive) zooms such as the Minolta (Sony) AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM.

That said, testing several vintage zoom lenses usually reveals that the copy-to-copy variation is quite a bit smaller than the variations observed between two completely different lenses from different manufacturers. Vintage zoom lenses usually are not that good, and their faults become easily visible on 24 MP FF cameras (let alone on 50 MP FF or 24 MP APS-C). In other words: Even testing vintage zoom lenses results in meaningful comparisons.

jjphoto wrote:
Also, it's quite handy to see how such vintage lenses compare with a similar modern lens if possible. For example, I'm quite confident that an identical sample corner image from a Sony/Zeiss FE 50/1.4 ZA would kind of shame these vintage lenses. This Sony 50ZA is actually extremely sharp wide open in the corners (due to an optical design where the mid/outer zone is less sharp than the centre or corners!).

Thanks.

True - but I don't usually have acces to those modern lenses. I do use a very limited number of more modern lenses for my professional work (including a Canon TS-E 17mm Shift, Zeiss ZA 2.8/16-35mm, Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm, Sony AL 2.8/70-200mm G and 1.8/85mm), but that's it. Even the largest images I publish (calenders in the 40 x 60 cm size) do not require more resolution ... and the sheer size and weight of most modern high performance lenses (Sigma ART or Zeiss Otus for instance) are completely unbearable for my kind of (landscape) work Wink

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for the test!. Curious how sharpness of your Mamiya compares to the Canon wide open at nearby objects.


You've already answered this question with your test, thankfully!


Actually I haven't, as I don't own the Canon. I have a suspicion though that the Mamiya will be sharper Smile

jjphoto wrote:

A lot of the time I see differences in performance from each corner of the same lens due to some internal misalignment, tilt, or whatever, in the optics of the lens being tested. So when an identical corner is shown from a series of different lenses it's quite possible that this particular corner might not be representative of the performance of each lens. In other words, this particular corner might be the worst or the best performing corner, instead of an average which truly represents the performance of the lens. Not sure what can be done about that aside from maybe a comment about each lens 'IF' it is in fact slightly misaligned.


Definitely a thing I'm more alert of lately, and do a check of the opposite corner now as a routine.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
caspert79 wrote:

lumens pixel wrote:
Very interesting. The nfd looks nice. Would have been interested in the results of the minolta 1,4 7/6.

Yeah, I may include it if better weather conditions allow for a renewed test! I have a Olympus OM 1.4/50mm as well, but it's an eraly (silvernose) lens so probably not as good as the later improved computation.

S


You might be surprised by the Silvernose. Depends on how it survived half the century of course.

https://theothersideofbokeh.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/50-fifties-measuring-sharpness-and-contrast/

https://theothersideofbokeh.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/fifty-fifties-final-evaluation-of-sharpness-at-a-longer-distance/

I think that tale of " >1.000.000 serial number has better IQ " has to be taken with a big lump of salt. A good CLA they all need, while the OM lens construction is excellent they tend to be quite open to the elements in use. Of course the coatings improved a lot over the long period it was available new. Still the 1.4 I prefer.

Anyway thank you for the revelations so far! Quite a job again and again.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A simple question:

- When do you use a 50/1.4 lens wide open, in daylight, and at a great distance from the subject?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
A simple question:

- When do you use a 50/1.4 lens wide open, in daylight, and at a great distance from the subject?


probably almost never, maybe during low light? i do use it in total night though, but not as much as daylight. Besides we all want to know how much lenses need to be closed down for landscapes, some of them are not sharp at f11 neither, many of them f8-f11 on FF, and of course it`s not only about sharpness.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
A simple question:

- When do you use a 50/1.4 lens wide open, in daylight, and at a great distance from the subject?


I like to shoot at F1.2 with 50-58mm lenses in full sun and I normally have to use an ND2 to reduce some of the light to a correct exposure. These few pics were from today with a 50/1.4 at 1.4 (Sony Zeiss FE50/1.4ZA).

The reason I like to shoot this way is because I like the vignetting and aberration that you get wide open. I'm not after perfectly sharp and evenly exposed images across the entire frame and from front to rear, otherwise I'd use a different lenses anyway, or just stop down. Anyway, I don't think it's so unusual to shoot this way.
#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
excellent work Steve Like Dog


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
A simple question:

- When do you use a 50/1.4 lens wide open, in daylight, and at a great distance from the subject?


For landscapes I would harldy ever do that indeed. For bokeh, yes.
DSC04028 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Click for full size. I like that this lens is sharp wide open.
In terms of bokeh, things can become quite wild, or smooth, depending on several factors:

MamiyaEF5014131 by devoscasper, on Flickr

DSC03431 by devoscasper, on Flickr

DSC03443 by devoscasper, on Flickr

DSC03451 by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:

These few pics were from today with a 50/1.4 at 1.4 (Sony Zeiss FE50/1.4ZA).


Is this lens categorized as one that has been thoroughly tested, allowing users to comfortably use it at full aperture? That’s the question


jjphoto wrote:

The reason I like to shoot this way is because I like the vignetting and aberration that you get wide open. I'm not after perfectly sharp and evenly exposed images across the entire frame and from front to rear, otherwise I'd use a different lenses anyway, or just stop down. Anyway, I don't think it's so unusual to shoot this way.


This an interesting approach: is it because you are using this 'perfect' Zeiss or it's something else ?

I have to try it once too, however with oem lenses .. hope that Fuji will give me some interesting result, otherwise I'll take something vintage [/quote]



jjphoto wrote:

#2


#4



these 2 are also on full open - 1.4 with ND filter ?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
...

Is this lens categorized as one that has been thoroughly tested, allowing users to comfortably use it at full aperture? That’s the question

...


Not sure how to answer that. The FE 50/1.4 ZA has relatively little aberration(s) wide open, it's very good at F1.4 but not perfect, and I have virtually no hesitation using it that way. For the last couple of years I've mainly used a Sony FE 50/1.2 which is virtually aberration free even at F1.2 (it's definitely the best fast lens I've ever used). I also use quite a few vintage 50-58mm F1.2 lenses and they all have aberrations wide open but this can be used to advantage to some degree, you just can't get razor sharpness across the film plane with them and you typically get a range of CA as well. But this makes for interesting images, if not technically perfect ones.

alex_d wrote:
...

these 2 are also on full open - 1.4 with ND filter ?


The pics I posted were shot at F1.4 but with a polarising filter. I prefer polarising filters when shooting architecture but an ND2 if shooting people. This lens was F1.4 so you don't really need an ND2 in full sun but it helps. However I mainly use F1.2 lenses so I can't get away without using an ND2 when shooting at F1.2 in full sun (without using electronic shutter, which I prefer not to do).


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use Sony lenses, Sony/Zeiss 50/1,4, Sony 50/1,2 GM. The GM is impressive, very sharp. If you like the focal lengh, no more than this lens. The Zeiss has CA wide open.

The rendering of the Hexanon in the test is very, very good at 5,6. I will use mine!!!

Another good 50/1,4 is the Minolta MDIII.

two lenses F/1,4 in the Sony system very useful, are the Zeiss ZA 35 and the 85 GM. Both have little CA longitudinal, but magical lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO)....


I tend to agree, however, doesn't that give lenses with more recessed front elements unfair advantage?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO)....


I tend to agree, however, doesn't that give lenses with more recessed front elements unfair advantage?


probably the difference on the depth of the hood for these lenses wouldn`t be that big as topcor re 58mm 1.4 wich is about 2cm only if I remember correctly


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
I always appreciate such comparisons, so thanks very much for posting this. These kinds of comparisons are much more useful than simple example images (which are fine too). I also think it's best to shoot these kinds of comparisons without hoods, because that shows up the flaws in the lens better (IMHO)....


I tend to agree, however, doesn't that give lenses with more recessed front elements unfair advantage?


Maybe they are better designed, so any advantage would not be 'unfair'. It's still telling you something about the lenses performance. Lots of lenses absolutely need a lens hood whilst some are great without them.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2