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 Nine vintage 2.8/35mm lenses on 24 MP FF
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2021 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

The newer Sony GM 16-35/2,8 is by far better than the ZA.


papasito wrote:

I had the Minolta AF 35/2 and the ZA 35/1,4. Both great lenses, but the GM 35/1,4 is better.


papasito wrote:
My Schneider angulon 35/2,8 and Minolta MDIII 35/2,8 have excellent centers, not so good borders.
The same with the flektagon 34/2,4, Elmarit R II 35/2,8 and hexanon 35/2,8
The first 35 mm lens I have with sharpness corner to corner is the Sony GM 35/1,4. From f/2,4.


Since most people here cannot afford to have these lenses, I'm sure many would be interested to see a similar comparison as I just made showing the performance of the Sony / Minolta GM 2.8/16-35 and Sony / Minolta GM 1.4/35 (maybe including one or two of the viontage 35mm lenses such as the Minolta MD-III, just as a reference).

I myself have tested several of the new generation lenses, starting with the Zeiss Otus series, but I had two main issues with them:

1) I can't use them on the Sony A900 which still produces the best colors of all cameras I know when used properly
2) these new lenses are way too big / heavy to use them for travelling and hiking

Of course these new lenses are much better than the previous series, but that doesn't translate to nicer images. When I make a large calender, I myself would prefer higher resolution than just 24MP. However, most people don't care about that; for them the colors and the luminous and nearly "translucent" character of the A900 JPGs is much more important than the highest resolution. A few days ago I had a very quick shooting (just a few minutes ... ) with the CFO of a large Swiss industrial company, and he was immediately caught by the A900 images. Black and white only, but taken in natural light and with wery well balanced shadows / highlights. Neither A7 nor A7II, A7RII or GFX50 can do this.

S


A900 has a strong reputation for sure. Do you consider that you can beat those jpegs with fine tuned raws?


PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2021 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:


A900 has a strong reputation for sure. Do you consider that you can beat those jpegs with fine tuned raws?


I've tried many times, using many different converters. No way ... I've discussed the issue with Sony people from Japan; the A900 (and A850) has a separate processor for its DRO functions, similar to those used in professional Sony TV cameras (e. g. football: half the area in direct sunlight, the other half in shadow ...). Later Sony DSLR / SLT cameras had software integrated into the image processor. Same for the A7 series.

I'll post some samples in a separate thread later on.

S


PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2021 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I guess the topcor beats all of them in fuzzing up the corners, but that's no reason not to get one. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcon-35mm-f-28-re-auto-topcor-t52524.html


Other than those pictures the other compelling reason to get the Topcor is the close focus ability. Only a Flektagon can focus closer. I don't know of another closer focusing 35mm.

These tests are one trick pony's. Only at infinity ignoring close and mid distances.

The Topcor does indeed have poor corners at most apertures. The best corner performance is at f/8. The central resolution, however, is extremely strong and astounding for its time.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I guess the topcor beats all of them in fuzzing up the corners, but that's no reason not to get one. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcon-35mm-f-28-re-auto-topcor-t52524.html


Other than those pictures the other compelling reason to get the Topcor is the close focus ability. Only a Flektagon can focus closer. I don't know of another closer focusing 35mm.

These tests are one trick pony's. Only at infinity ignoring close and mid distances.

The Topcor does indeed have poor corners at most apertures. The best corner performance is at f/8. The central resolution, however, is extremely strong and astounding for its time.

The Steinheil Macro-Quinon 35mm F2.8 focus down to 2:1 by itself.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for this excellent review. Would be nice to see how the Minolta MD 35mm 1.8 performs at 2.8 versus all these lenses. Probably less vignetting but any good?


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
Would be nice to see how the Minolta MD 35mm 1.8 performs at 2.8 versus all these lenses. Probably less vignetting but any good?


I didn't realize any differences when comparing the edges of both MD lenses at same aperture. Only my AF 35/2 performs considerably better. Otherwise all of my other 35mm lenses perform worse in this specific discipline.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
Thanks for this excellent review. Would be nice to see how the Minolta MD 35mm 1.8 performs at 2.8 versus all these lenses. Probably less vignetting but any good?


Here you are:



Out of five different Minolta 1.8/35mm lenses I have (MC-I, MC-II, MC-X, MD-II, MD-III) I took the latest version of each computation (MC-X and MD-III). As a reference I've included the MD-III 2.8/35mm, and as a bonus the Minolta AF 2/35mm (first version). I've never tested the second version of the AF 2/35mm, and therefore can't tell whether it performs better or not.

A few remarks:

1) the MC-X and MD-III 1.8/35mm perform nearly identical; their main difference is size and weight. Focus on the MC-X is extremely smooth ("alu-on brass" focuing threads like Leica); the MD-III feels quite a bit stiffer ("alu-on-alu").

2) The 1.8/35mm lenses have a much larger area of reduced resolution, compared to the 2.8/35mm [5/5]. They are useful for landscape from f5.6 on; f8 is even sligtly better.

3) Apart from vignetting (which can be corrected quite easily in postprocessing) the MD-III 2.8/35mm has sharper corners wide open than the 1.8/35mm lenses at f5.6

4) The Minolta AF-I 2/35mm is slightly better than the 1.8/35mm lenses, and quite a bit wider than the Minolta MC/MD 2.8/35mm and 1.8/35mm lenses

5) The Minolta AF 1.4/35mm (contrary to what Ken Rockwell claims) is quite a bit worse than the 2/35mm - lower resolution and more CAs at comparable f-stops (not shown here - I don't own the Minolta AF 1.4/35mm). Of course it has - at close distances - a very smooth bokeh; towards infinity i is quite harsh however (large aspherical glass lens).

S


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's interesting. My result is different......

Where did you set the focus point? In the middle or in the corner?
Could you eventually show a overview of the whole picture to show the location of the crop?

Many thanks in advance.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I thought that the MD 35mm 1.8 and AF 35mm f2 would be better than the 2.8.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
That's interesting. My result is different......

Please share them Wink

tb_a wrote:
Where did you set the focus point? In the middle or in the corner?

I always focus the center of the image, and always wide open.
I consider field curvature to be a flaw, and focus shift (due to spherical aberration) as well.

tb_a wrote:
Could you eventually show a overview of the whole picture to show the location of the crop?

Upper left corner of 24 MP FF!

blotafton wrote:
I thought that the MD 35mm 1.8 and AF 35mm f2 would be better than the 2.8.

Fast wideangles are notoriously difficult to calculate - and they ususally are worse than their contemporary (!) slower counterparts. In some cases (particularly at f=28mm) the slower f2.8 lenses are typical "budget" lenses (e. g. the MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5]), and as such they may be worse than the faster sibling (e. g. MD-III 2/28mm [9/9]).

Gr Wink S


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
tb_a wrote:
That's interesting. My result is different......

Please share them Wink

tb_a wrote:
Where did you set the focus point? In the middle or in the corner?

I always focus the center of the image, and always wide open.
I consider field curvature to be a flaw, and focus shift (due to spherical aberration) as well.

tb_a wrote:
Could you eventually show a overview of the whole picture to show the location of the crop?

Upper left corner of 24 MP FF!

Gr Wink S


Thanks for reply.
My MD F1.8 was similar to the MD F2.8 and the AF F2 was better; i.e. the difference between MD 1.8 and AF 2 was likewise as shown in your example. Your MD F2.8 result ist stunning.
Maybe my focusing wasn't perfect. I used AF-adapters (LA-EA4 monster and Techart PRO) for my testings. I will repeat my test with manual focusing adapters and a flatter field of view where the edges are proximately in the same distance like the center.


PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2021 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

I consider field curvature to be a flaw, and focus shift (due to spherical aberration) as well.



They are flaws. But maybe you could consider a hierarchy of the flaws.

A blurry lens in the corners is less interesting than a sharp one with field curvature, itself less interesting than a one that is sharp with a flat field because you could always have interesting results with the second one and much less with the first. And sometimes field curvature is not against you, so I would be a little more lenient.


PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2021 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
stevemark wrote:

I consider field curvature to be a flaw, and focus shift (due to spherical aberration) as well.



They are flaws. But maybe you could consider a hierarchy of the flaws.

A blurry lens in the corners is less interesting than a sharp one with field curvature, itself less interesting than a one that is sharp with a flat field because you could always have interesting results with the second one and much less with the first. And sometimes field curvature is not against you, so I would be a little more lenient.


In the Mamiya Sekor CS 35mm 2.8 there is not much field curvature considering this take at 2.8 + Find Edges Stylize.



PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2021 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

They are flaws. But maybe you could consider a hierarchy of the flaws.

A blurry lens in the corners is less interesting than a sharp one with field curvature, itself less interesting than a one that is sharp with a flat field because you could always have interesting results with the second one and much less with the first. And sometimes field curvature is not against you, so I would be a little more lenient.


Absolutely, you are completely right. My comparisons are nothing but a snapshot, and never a complete review of a certain lens - others such as Richard Haw for Nikkors or Lens QA Works for Minolta MC/MD do this much better. However you rarely find comparisons between so many lenses of different manufacturers, and that's why I'm publishing these results. To make them somehow comparable I chose to always focus in the center, and always wide open. That's an arbitrary decision, but not completely meaningless I hope Wink

S


PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2021 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Steve!
The MD 1.8 is a bit disappointing... but indeed, faster lenses usually perform less well all things equal.
On the other hand the 35mm f 2.8 is really excellent compared to the competition which widens the gap, I suppose.


PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2021 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:

They are flaws. But maybe you could consider a hierarchy of the flaws.

A blurry lens in the corners is less interesting than a sharp one with field curvature, itself less interesting than a one that is sharp with a flat field because you could always have interesting results with the second one and much less with the first. And sometimes field curvature is not against you, so I would be a little more lenient.


Absolutely, you are completely right. My comparisons are nothing but a snapshot, and never a complete review of a certain lens - others such as Richard Haw for Nikkors or Lens QA Works for Minolta MC/MD do this much better. However you rarely find comparisons between so many lenses of different manufacturers, and that's why I'm publishing these results. To make them somehow comparable I chose to always focus in the center, and always wide open. That's an arbitrary decision, but not completely meaningless I hope Wink

S


Not meaningless at all. I always read them with great interest. If from time to time you come to refocus on the corner that will also be a nice piece of info.

Now I view the real rival to this MD 35 2,8 in the person on the FD counterpart.

To my eyes the Minolta Is sharper in the corner but the FD has a flatter field. How would you sort that?


PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2021 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
If from time to time you come to refocus on the corner that will also be a nice piece of info.

Good idea - I keep that in mind. I've been doing (rarely) before, e. g. in case of the newest vesrion of the Novoflex Noflexar T 5.6/400mm - which is a fantastic lens, but with clearly visible field curvature. Much better chromatic correction than the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L @ f5.6, btw!


lumens pixel wrote:
Now I view the real rival to this MD 35 2,8 in the person on the FD counterpart.
To my eyes the Minolta Is sharper in the corner but the FD has a flatter field. How would you sort that?


I didn't notice much field curvature when using the MD-III 2.8/35mm (at infinity) ... and I don't own the Canon nFD 2.8/35mm! So I can't really say much about it - but maybe you could provide some image (crops) to show us ?

S


PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2021 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I could photograph almost any old 35mm of the first echelon. (Minolta md, Nikkor f, Canon nfd, Pentax) All of them will show approximately the same quality. (more depends on the specific instance that you will have) Minolta "impresses" with its assembly, Canon weight, price, Nikkor was very good but my copy "limped" on one side. I also heard a lot of "good" things about the pentax K 35/3.5 and even more about the FA 35/2


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@stevemark

OK, confirm. You are absolutely right. I have repeated my test with very careful and precise manual focusing and better choice of target. Obviously the AF adapters have been the reason for my slightly different previous result.

At F2.8 the MD III lens isn't beatable in this specific discipline; not even the MD II version of the MD 35mm/F2.8 lens is on the same level.
Both the AF 35/2 and the MD 35/1.8 lack behind.

Verdict: Only manual focussing allow serious comparison of lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

The newer Sony GM 16-35/2,8 is by far better than the ZA.


papasito wrote:

I had the Minolta AF 35/2 and the ZA 35/1,4. Both great lenses, but the GM 35/1,4 is better.


papasito wrote:
My Schneider angulon 35/2,8 and Minolta MDIII 35/2,8 have excellent centers, not so good borders.
The same with the flektagon 34/2,4, Elmarit R II 35/2,8 and hexanon 35/2,8
The first 35 mm lens I have with sharpness corner to corner is the Sony GM 35/1,4. From f/2,4.


Since most people here cannot afford to have these lenses, I'm sure many would be interested to see a similar comparison as I just made showing the performance of the Sony / Minolta GM 2.8/16-35 and Sony / Minolta GM 1.4/35 (maybe including one or two of the viontage 35mm lenses such as the Minolta MD-III, just as a reference).

I myself have tested several of the new generation lenses, starting with the Zeiss Otus series, but I had two main issues with them:

1) I can't use them on the Sony A900 which still produces the best colors of all cameras I know when used properly
2) these new lenses are way too big / heavy to use them for travelling and hiking

Of course these new lenses are much better than the previous series, but that doesn't translate to nicer images. When I make a large calender, I myself would prefer higher resolution than just 24MP. However, most people don't care about that; for them the colors and the luminous and nearly "translucent" character of the A900 JPGs is much more important than the highest resolution. A few days ago I had a very quick shooting (just a few minutes ... ) with the CFO of a large Swiss industrial company, and he was immediately caught by the A900 images. Black and white only, but taken in natural light and with wery well balanced shadows / highlights. Neither A7 nor A7II, A7RII or GFX50 can do this.

S


A900 has a strong reputation for sure. Do you consider that you can beat those jpegs with fine tuned raws?


Hi.

First, sorry but I haven't enough time actually to make a good test like there are in the forum.

About the A900, I had not that great camera. But I had hear some good things of her.

I don"t know If I can beat, or not, a fine jpg image with a raw post produced one.

Obviously C. Bresson did not use A900 (Llike you) nor 7RIV (like me) but his images sure are a lot better.

And about the IQ of the newer lenses I remember the discusión in 1970's magazines over the IQ of the newer Leica M lenses and the oldest ones.
It seems here is almost the same.

The ZA planar 50/1,4 is the best planar 50/1,4 made. More sharpness in all the frame from F/4, more sharp in the center at F/1 4, more contrast, a lot less CA, less flare, better.

And the same with the 16-35, 35/1,4, 24/1,4 and 135/1,8 (except for the apo leicas and zeiss) GM lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2