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: Canon nFD28/2 vs Minolta MC28/2.5 vs Pentax K28/3.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Pick your favourite
Canon nFD 28mm f/2
41%
 41%  [ 5 ]
Pentax "K" 28mm f/3.5
41%
 41%  [ 5 ]
Minolta MC 28mm f/2.5
16%
 16%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 12



PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:30 pm    Post subject: Test: Canon nFD28/2 vs Minolta MC28/2.5 vs Pentax K28/3.5 Reply with quote
I promised a comparison, so here it is...

note: If the crops aren't displayed right (above each other rather than next to each other), that might be due to your chosen "Board Style". The "mflenses" style (which is the default if you're not logged in) inserts a line break for some reason, the other 3 styles don't.
If you don't like change, "oldmflenses" looks almost the same as "mflenses" and works fine.

UPDATE: You can download the full pictures here (417MB .rar file)

The contenders:


Minolta MC 28mm f/2.5 (350g, 66 x 62 mm)
Pentax "K" 28mm f/3.5 (260g, 63 x 47 mm)
Canon nFD 35mm f/2 (265g, 63 x 47 mm)
For comparison, not pictured: Canon nFD 35mm f/2 (245g, 63 x 46 mm)


Rather than close-ups, I went for a longer distance this time (~2.9m), I didn't think of the 35 when I set up the shot so I ran out of space when I tried to match the framing...

Scene & crops - 28mm:


Scene & crops - 35mm:


Sharpening:

(no sharpening on export)



nFD 35/2 - f/2.0


nFD 28/2 - f/2.0


nFD 35/2 - f/2.4


nFD 28/2 - f/2.4


MC 28/2.5 - f/2.5


nFD 35/2 - f/2.8


nFD 28/2 - f/2.8


nFD 35/2 - f/3.4


nFD 28/2 - f/3.4


K28/3.5 - f/3.5


nFD 35/2 - f/4.0


nFD 28/2 - f/4.0


MC 28/2.5 - f/4.0


K28/3.5 - f/4.0


nFD 35/2 - f/4.8


nFD 28/2 - f/4.8


MC 28/2.5 - f/4.8


nFD 35/2 - f/5.6


nFD 28/2 - f/5.6


MC 28/2.5 - f/5.6


K28/3.5 - f/5.6


nFD 35/2 - f/6.7


nFD 28/2 - f/6.7


MC 28/2.5 - f/6.7


K28/3.5 - f/6.7


nFD 35/2 - f/8.0


nFD 28/2 - f/8.0


MC 28/2.5 - f/8.0


K28/3.5 - f/8.0


nFD 35/2 - f/9.5


nFD 28/2 - f/9.5


MC 28/2.5 - f/9.5


K28/3.5 - f/9.5


nFD 35/2 - f/11


nFD 28/2 - f/11


MC 28/2.5 - f/11


K28/3.5 - f/11


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:25 am; edited 8 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks like a proper well made test, but this layout makes it hard to compare.

The Pentax looks good.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
Looks like a proper well made test, but this layout makes it hard to compare.

The Pentax looks good.


If the crops aren't displayed right (above each other rather than next to each other), that might be due to your chosen "Board Style". The "mflenses" style (which is the default if you're not logged in) inserts a line break for some reason, the other 3 styles don't.

It should look like this:



PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm logged in, but the display is not side-a side, rather linear all following each other in a long line, sorry


PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I'm logged in, but the display is not side-a side, rather linear all following each other in a long line, sorry


What "board style" are you using and what's your display resolution?

EDIT: I played around with the display resolution, when it gets too low, every 5th crop jumps to the next row but the only way I could reproduce the crops all being displayed vertically is by setting the board style to "mflenses".

I've removed the spaces between the crops, one line of crops (5x300px) now has the exact same width as the larger pictures, the 5th crops don't drop to the next row when I lower the resolution now.

Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:35 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Logged in and I had the long single column of images. I change my board profile from 'mflenses' to 'oldmflenses' and everything is fine ie nicely lined up rows of images.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't see the point in this sort of test. All it shows is they are all more than good enough when stopped down, which we already knew about all lenses from tier-1 makers.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't see the point in this sort of test. All it shows is they are all more than good enough when stopped down, which we already knew about all lenses from tier-1 makers.


Sure, but it depends on how far you stop them down, what you consider good enough and where in the frame your subjects is.

At f/2, the nFD is usable across the frame, the others aren't usable at all.

At f/2.4 to f/2.8, the nFD28 is sharp enough across the frame but lacks contrast, the MC28 is good enough in the center but not in the corners and the K28 isn't usable at all.

At f/3.5 to f/4, the K28 is more than good enough across the frame, the MC28 is good enough in the center but somewhat lacking in the corners and the nFD28 is good enough across the frame but lacks contrast in the corners.

At f/5.6 to f/8, they're all more than good enough but the MC28 still lags behind in corner sharpness and the nFD28 still lacks contrast in the corners.


If you don't need large apertures, the K28 is clearly the best of the three. The nFD28 isn't as good (at the shared apertures) but it's more versatile than the K28 and better than the MC28.

I'll keep the nFD28 to see whether buying the Sony FE28/2 makes sense for me (having at least one AF lens would be nice and the FE28 is quite good, very compact and reasonably priced). I suspect I'll keep the K28 even if I do buy the FE28/2 but with those two, I'd have 28mm covered for good.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
blotafton wrote:
Looks like a proper well made test, but this layout makes it hard to compare.

The Pentax looks good.


If the crops aren't displayed right (above each other rather than next to each other), that might be due to your chosen "Board Style". The "mflenses" style (which is the default if you're not logged in) inserts a line break for some reason, the other 3 styles don't.

It should look like this:


Now it works, much better!

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't see the point in this sort of test. All it shows is they are all more than good enough when stopped down, which we already knew about all lenses from tier-1 makers.


Tests like this makes it easier to choose which one to get. And it's fun to compare in my opinion. Not all that far from measuring horse powers on engines.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, learn something new every day. Always wondered why I couldn't get images to display side by side on this forum.

Quick test: all the board styles display the crops side by side except for "mflenses", however the images require scrolling on my benq 1920x1080 screen. The "mflenses" setting auto resizes. UPDATE seems like every time I log in i am defaulted to the "mflenses" board style.

I'm keeping my K28mm/f3.5! Best of my 28's wide open and across the frame.

Last edited by marcusBMG on Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another test showing nFD stuff is better than Rokkor..hahah. This could be dangerous. I don't even own and FD...yet. Laugh 1


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keep these reviews coming. They'll help drop the prices of Minolta lenses and drive Canon FD prices higher. Very Happy

Btw, I wonder how the slower Minolta 28's (f/2.8 and f/3.5) compare. The more I learn about Minolta the more I get the feeling that the faster lenses aren't really the better ones, they just have wider maximum apertures. Also it seems there's a common theme with Minolta wides: field curvature looks to be more pronounced than with other brands.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great test, that is for sure, you've put a lot of effort in to it!

But: i feel like this is comparing apples to pears. What would have been interesting imho is a test between similar lenses, you used the Minolta MC 2.5/28 while you should have tested the MD 2.0/28 against the Canon nFD 2.0/28. Same for the Pentax, there is a Pentax-M 2.0/28.
Or am i missing the point here?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
Keep these reviews coming. They'll help drop the prices of Minolta lenses and drive Canon FD prices higher. Very Happy
.


Like 1 small Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
Keep these reviews coming. They'll help drop the prices of Minolta lenses and drive Canon FD prices higher. :D


I guess I need to be quick selling off the ones I won't keep... (MC28/2.5, MD35/1.8, MD200/2.8, MD300-S)

miran wrote:
Btw, I wonder how the slower Minolta 28's (f/2.8 and f/3.5) compare. The more I learn about Minolta the more I get the feeling that the faster lenses aren't really the better ones, they just have wider maximum apertures. Also it seems there's a common theme with Minolta wides: field curvature looks to be more pronounced than with other brands.


I didn't notice any field curvature on the MC28/2.5 but my close-range comparison with the 35s was at ~1.2m (vs ~2.9m this time).
I don't think this old design (9/7, bigger, different glass types, 0.5m MFD) has much in common with the MD 35s.

Minoltas early fast lenses (28/2.5, 35/1.8, 58/1.2, 85/1.7; all designed 1968-1970) were all very fast for their time, they probably had to make a lot of compromises to achieve that. Some of their later fast designs (e.g. 35/1.8) were atypically small for their large apertures, that may have been a mistake... The MD35/1.8 doesn't have floating elements while most of it's competition at the time had. The MC28/2 may be not but the MDIII 28/2 is probably better than any of Minolta's slower 28s.

TrueLoveOne wrote:
But: i feel like this is comparing apples to pears. What would have been interesting imho is a test between similar lenses, you used the Minolta MC 2.5/28 while you should have tested the MD 2.0/28 against the Canon nFD 2.0/28. Same for the Pentax, there is a Pentax-M 2.0/28.
Or am i missing the point here?


If I had those lenses, they would be in the comparison, I tested what I had to decide which to keep.
The MC28/2.5 is a 'fast 28', it's just an older design (1969). Nikon made their first 28/2 in 1970 (until then, their fastest 28 was f/3.5, they made their first 28/2.8 in 1974),
Canon made their first 28/2 in 1975 (I don't know when the FD28/2.8 came out, there only was a 28/3.5 for FL-mount),
Minolta made their first 28/2 in 1975, I'm not quite sure but I think the MC28/2.5 was actually the fastest 28mm SLR lens when it came out.

The MD28/2 (the redesigned MDIII version) would probably be the closest match for the nFD28/2 (both designed around 1980, similar size & weight, 9/9 or 10/9 design with floating elements) but it's quite rare and way too expensive when it's sold.
I've heard good things about the M28/2. I don't think it'll beat the K28/3.5 when stopped down but I'd expect it to beat the nFD28/2 on contrast and center sharpness. The Pentax is farily rare too and typically sells above 200€.

With the Sony FE28/2 selling used around 300€, that's a bit much for my taste. I'll keep the nFD28/2 until I've decided whether I need* a fast 28. If I do, I'll end up with the FE28/2 anyway, if I don't, the K28/3.5 will do fine.


*I have the nFD35/2 (at least between my copies, the 35 is clearly better than the 28) if I need a fast moderate wide angle and the K28/3.5 when I want the 28mm FOV for land-/cityscapes. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with the FE28/2 (not many affordable AF lenses for the A7...), but I want to make sure that the FOV really suits me.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Rokkor and the Pentax. The Pentax is really very good across the frame and has almost no CA.
The Rokkor is perhaps slightly sharper in the center . It is a feeling with my samples. You can use it in the center at 2.5, so it is more versatile.
For me both are keepers.

I think that you should do following things before making your choice:
make some tests from a longer distance.
make some tests with difficult light ( flare, ghosting and CA )

Thank you for the several tests which you have shared till now.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't see the point in this sort of test. All it shows is they are all more than good enough when stopped down, which we already knew about all lenses from tier-1 makers.

I found the test mighty interesting, which, by itself, makes it a useful test.

Furthermore, you make it seem as if a test that proves that the conventional wisdom is true is useless. Did you ever where the conventional wisdom originally came from?

Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
I have the Rokkor and the Pentax. The Pentax is really very good across the frame and has almost no CA.
The Rokkor is perhaps slightly sharper in the center . It is a feeling with my samples. You can use it in the center at 2.5, so it is more versatile.
For me both are keepers.

I think that you should do following things before making your choice:
make some tests from a longer distance.
make some tests with difficult light ( flare, ghosting and CA )

Thank you for the several tests which you have shared till now.


I've done a flare test with the 35s that I haven't posted yet (I misplaced the files...), I'll do the same with the 28s. I've added a couple of shots from the 35s at the bottom of this post.


The distance test shots are all shot from my balcony, the building across the parking lot works quite well but I'm running out of flat surface at 28mm, I might have to find a different scene for the 28s.

Here's what it looks like from above (the green markings are for 35mm):




MD 35/1.8 at f/1.8:


MD 35/1.8 at f/1.8, lightsource just beyond the upper left corner:


MD 35/2.8 at f/2.8:


MD 35/2.8 at f/2.8, lightsource just beyond the upper left corner:


nFD 35/2 at f/2:


nFD 35/2 at f/2, lightsource just beyond the upper left corner:
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1