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 Twenty-one vintage 28mm lenses on 24 MP FF
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You know Stephan, one of details which impresses me most in your tests, aside of course their very systematic character, is the constant light conditions you have "over there", on the side of your neighbours' gardens and homes. I stumbled upon a couple of your tests made a year and two years ago. They are merely identical in this respect. That gives a hit of surreal imagination, as if you are shooting a kind of artificial human place, such as depicted in the Vivarium movie. Even more than that, your neighbour's family feel themselves pretty much flattered by this unexpected celebrity, they thoroughly follow your every post and discuss around the dinner table: yes, this time the house looks good and the garden turns out well. So, not to disgrace themselves they secretly follow you, and each time you promise here in the forum "I may make a new test in the week-end", they take a day or two beforehand to do a new perfect maintainance of the house and the garden. Must be in night time, when you cannot see it happening. And OK, that could well explain the constant look of the target in your tests throughout the years. But the light remains mystery. Who controls the light for your test shootings?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:
You know Stephan, one of details which impresses me most in your tests, aside of course their very systematic character, is the constant light conditions you have "over there", on the side of your neighbours' gardens and homes. I stumbled upon a couple of your tests made a year and two years ago. They are merely identical in this respect. That gives a hit of surreal imagination, as if you are shooting a kind of artificial human place, such as depicted in the Vivarium movie. Even more than that, your neighbour's family feel themselves pretty much flattered by this unexpected celebrity, they thoroughly follow your every post and discuss around the dinner table: yes, this time the house looks good and the garden turns out well. So, not to disgrace themselves they secretly follow you, and each time you promise here in the forum "I may make a new test in the week-end", they take a day or two beforehand to do a new perfect maintainance of the house and the garden. Must be in night time, when you cannot see it happening. And OK, that could well explain the constant look of the target in your tests throughout the years. But the light remains mystery. Who controls the light for your test shootings?


Actually it's not always easy to have some fairly constant natural light. I usually prefer some overcast (without rain of course); if that's not possible also a nice sunny day may work pretty well especially for wideangles. Overcast is better though since sunshine tends to result in air turbulences, and they are "deadly" for any tele test.

Of course we have not "constant light over here", but I simply try to choose a suitable day (weather & time) ... BTW I had to stop the 28mm test shown here because suddenly the sun came through the clouds, and everything was changing:



While these crops are not directly comparable to the other 21 lenses, you still can see that the superwide zoom from around 2007 is pretty good compared to the vintage 28mm lenses. And the "long end" of the ZA 16-35mm clearly is the weak spot of the lens!

I often make some preparing tests in less stable weather & light conditions; they usually give me a good idea and preparation for "the real tests". And believe me - I have done lots of such non-published tests in addition to those published (ususally 2-3 additional tests before publishing anything). In some cases - e. g. with tele lenses >300mm - I never managed to have suitable, stable weather conditions (clear air without air turbulence) ... Which explains why I never published large tests with 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses!

S


PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
I wonder where the Minolta 28mm 2.5 would fit in the ranking if decently deyellowed.


I'll compare a few faster f2 and f2.5 28mm lenses later on. Still missing the Nikkor 2/28mm, though ... Otherwise the Canon FD and the new FD are here, as well as the different Minolta f2.5 and f2 computations, and a few non-OEM fast 28mm lenses.

S


That would be nice. Are there more than one Minolta 28mm 2.5's? 28mm is not my favorite focal length but it would round off what is interesting in vintage 28mm lenses I guess. The Olympus and Kiron 28mm 2.0 not mentioned then.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today I got a Olympus 28mm 2.8 in the mail. I think it would do very well in this test. It's the latest Auto-W version.
First test looks promising.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

That would be nice. Are there more than one Minolta 28mm 2.5's? 28mm is not my favorite focal length but it would round off what is interesting in vintage 28mm lenses I guess. The Olympus and Kiron 28mm 2.0 not mentioned then.


* there are three different barrels (MC-I, MC-II and MC-X) for the Minolta MC 2.5/28mm. Optical formula should be the same, but I've seen some differences in performance. Maybe a bad sample??

* I have a few more 2/28mm lenses such as the Cosina 2/28mm and a Kiron 2/28mm. Sadly the more expensive (and more interesting) lenses such as Olympus Zuiko 2/28mm, Nikkor Ai 2/28mm and Zeiss CY 2/28mm are not in my inventory ...

* there's also a Vivitar 2.5/28mm here ...

S


PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Of course we have not "constant light over here", but I simply try to choose a suitable day (weather & time) ... BTW I had to stop the 28mm test shown here because suddenly the sun came through the clouds, and everything was changing:





Wow Stephan, that's a methodicalness, hat off!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Zamo wrote:
Interesting.
Surprised that the Konica 7/7 rubber grip performs less well than the metal one, which is younger. And, at f11, all lenses are quite useable (except for the Pentacon and a couple more).


Yes, I noticed that as well and did a second run today, just to be sure that I hadn't mixed up something. Same result, though! There are two possible explanations:

1) slighty decentered copy of the rubber grip AR 3.5/28mm [7/7]
2) Konica did some slight modifications to the design of the [7/7] 3.5/28mm (quite possible - the 28mm lenses were produced in very large numbers, and they were quite cost-sensitive => "optimization" ??)


I have re-checked the performance of the Konica Hexanon AR 3.5/28mm [7/7], using four copies:



1) early AR 3.5/28mm with silver ring at the base of the lens; metal focusing grip
2) later AR 3.5/28mm, all black; metal focusing grip
3) late AR 3.5/28mm with rubber focusing grip (sample 1)
4) late AR 3.5/28mm with rubber focusing grip (sample 2)

Lenses 1) and 3) had been used in the original test; lenses 2) and 4) were added now.

Here's the result:



Well, lens 1) clearly has a slightly different computation since its focal length differs from the other three lenses. It still is the best of the bunch. Lens 3) is the worst, and the newly added lenses 2) and 4) are in between. Pixel peeping for sure, but interesting to see nevertheless.

S

EDIT: the Hexanon 3.5/28mm [5/5] and the Hexar 3.5/28mm [5/5] have an identical performance. I guess that they share the same optical computation. The image below shows the AR Hexanon 3.5/28mm [7/7], the AR Hexanon 3.5/28mm [5/5] and the Hexar 3.5/28mm [5/5] side by side.



PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


I have re-checked the performance of the Konica Hexanon AR 3.5/28mm [7/7], using four copies:

1) early AR 3.5/28mm with silver ring at the base of the lens; metal focusing grip
2) later AR 3.5/28mm, all black; metal focusing grip
3) late AR 3.5/28mm with rubber focusing grip (sample 1)
4) late AR 3.5/28mm with rubber focusing grip (sample 2)

Lenses 1) and 3) had been used in the original test; lenses 2) and 4) were added now.

Here's the result:

Well, lens 1) clearly has a slightly different computation since its focal length differs from the other three lenses. It still is the best of the bunch. Lens 3) is the worst, and the newly added lenses 2) and 4) are in between. Pixel peeping for sure, but interesting to see nevertheless.



Could it be that the first one, although with the same computation, has slightly better glass quality/less tolerances/better quality control than later ones? Coatings are supposed to improve with time, but that helps mostly against stray light, (semi)direct source lights, etc. So maybe, even with less good coatings, a bit more old-school manufacturing makes earlier copies better when coatings do not influence much? Anyone has compared supposedly identical optical formulas from different decades? (in particular, from the very beginning of Konica AR mount and later ones)


PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:

Could it be that the first one, although with the same computation, has slightly better glass quality/less tolerances/better quality control than later ones? Coatings are supposed to improve with time, but that helps mostly against stray light, (semi)direct source lights, etc. So maybe, even with less good coatings, a bit more old-school manufacturing makes earlier copies better when coatings do not influence much? Anyone has compared supposedly identical optical formulas from different decades? (in particular, from the very beginning of Konica AR mount and later ones)


I've no idea, to be honest. I think I have some more sample of the 3.5/28mm somewhere up in the attic. I have checked ten copies of the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/135mm and found considerable variation, including a slight change of the focal length. I have checked ten samples of the Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm and ten samples of the MD-III 1.7/50 - no sample variation visible on 24 MP FF. And I have checked seven sample of the Minolta AF 28-135mm, with no visible variation as well.

It seems to me that the very early lens 1) has a slightly different computation, and that one of the other three (sample 3) may have some damage.

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