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 Zeiss CY 3.3-4.5/28-85mm vs Vivitar S1 28-90mm & ot
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:29 pm    Post subject: TEST Zeiss CY 3.3-4.5/28-85mm vs Vivitar S1 28-90mm & ot Reply with quote
Recently I got a nice Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 3.3-4/28-85mm. This lens always has sparked my curiosity, especially since the Zeiss CY Vario-Sonnars 3.5/70-210mm and CY 4/80-200mm are the sharpest zooms of their time.
In this thread I will publish some information comparing the Zeiss with several other lenses at different focal lengths. Those comparisons will include the peers from Canon / Minolta / Nikon / Yashica, but also less common and not so well known lenses as well - for refence - well known primes.
To start with I did a comparison at f=50mm at dawn. The point light sources will allow to judge coma. Here are some 100% crops from corners of 24 MP FF JPGs from the A7II:

1) Minolta MD-III 2/50mm
2) Panagor PMC Auto Zoom 3.5/35-100mm
3) Vivitar Series 1 VMC Macro Focusing 2.8-3.5/28-90mm (varifocal lens!)
4) Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 3.3-4/28-85mm

ATTENTION: MY BROWSER (FIREFOX) IS MESSING WITH THE UPLOADED FILES, SHOWING THEM EITHER TOO SMALL OR ENLARGED TO SCREEN SIZE, CAUSING PRONPOUNCED LOSS OF DETAIL IN EITHER CASE. PLEASE DOWNLOAD AND WATCH AT 100% IN A PROPER PROGRAM SUCH AS PHOTOSHOP!

First the overview:



100% crops from the corner:



100% crops from near the border:


I'm a bit surprised that the Zeiss, quite an expensive lens in its days (and realtively modern) doesn't really outperform the two other zoom/varifocal lenses (let alone the cheapo Minolta prime).
More information will follow.

Last edited by stevemark on Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow, not really what i´ve expected from zeiss, i was going to tell you to include the affordable and easy available minolta 35-70mm zoom (i know it´s not a 28mm)
of course this is a torture test for most of these lenses, probably in daylight shooting, zeiss might show some more details
at 5.6 minolta has more details than any other lens at f11, as expected from such a good prime


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
wow, not really what i´ve expected from zeiss, i was going to tell you to include the affordable and easy available minolta 35-70mm zoom (i know it´s not a 28mm)
of course this is a torture test for most of these lenses, probably in daylight shooting, zeiss might show some more details
at 5.6 minolta has more details than any other lens at f11, as expected from such a good prime


I will certainly publish several tests under different light conditions.

I've been reading several other CY 28-85mm reviews in the net, and several of them confirm that the Zeiss isn't perfectly sharp in the corners, not even stopped stopped down. So probably not an issue with my sample, but real world performance. See e. g. here: https://www.addicted2light.com/2016/11/24/review-contax-vario-sonnar-28-85-mm-f3-3-4/?v=1ee0bf89c5d1

I remember back in the days (mid-end 1990s) that there were complains about "missing" performance of the Minolta AF 2.8/28-70mm lens. Fast midrange zooms were notoriously difficult to compute. Remember Nikons midrange professional zoom was 2.8/35-70mm in the early 1990s (Zeiss 28-85 came out in 1988).

It will be interesting to see how the "Big Five" 28-85mm lenses from around 1985-1990 compare (Canon FD, Minolta MD/AF, Nikon AiS/AF, Yashica ML, Zeiss CY). Obviously 35-70mm was much much easier to compute back then!

I guess the Zeiss was more desiged as a reportage lens than a landscape zoom.

S

EDIT Zeiss MTF data do confirm the rather low border/corner performance:
https://www.zeiss.ch/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/de/datasheet-zeiss-vario-sonnar-33402885-de.pdf


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:



I guess the Zeiss was more designed as a reportage lens than a landscape zoom. S


I wonder how many lenses were planned/designed in this manner.
There's another I know of- the old Nikkor "H" 50mm f2, and possibly the old Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 N.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Panagor does surprisingly well. How good is it at other focal lengths?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
stevemark wrote:



I guess the Zeiss was more designed as a reportage lens than a landscape zoom. S


I wonder how many lenses were planned/designed in this manner.
There's another I know of- the old Nikkor "H" 50mm f2, and possibly the old Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 N.

-D.S.


Certainly the Vivitar 28-90 became a favourite of street photography.
I think it was referred to as the stovepipe.
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting. Of course the Minolta 50 is impressive. At such focal lenght the Panagor is surprising. Who was the manufacturer?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
The Panagor does surprisingly well. How good is it at other focal lengths?

I was very surprised too since my first shots with the Panagor had indicated a pretty bad performance. I haven't tested other focal lengths yet, since the weather is a bit disappointing lately Wink

All these results are preliminary (although carefully made as ususal with tripod, self timer and electronic 1st shutter to avoid any movenemts).


Oldhand wrote:

Certainly the Vivitar 28-90 became a favourite of street photography.
Tom

Interesting! Why? I always though that street photographers would prefer fixed focal lengths? Occasionally I do street photography, and usually I prefer either a 20mm (going really close) or a 2.8/200mm APO (to get nice separation from the background).

lumens pixel wrote:
Very interesting. Of course the Minolta 50 is impressive. At such focal lenght the Panagor is surprising. Who was the manufacturer?

I have no idea. Olypedia has a data sheet, but no information on the manufacturer:
https://olypedia.de/images/8/83/Panagor_PMC_Auto_Zoom_35-100_3.5.jpg

Jaca Corp. (Tokyo) seems to have been the owner of both the Elicar and Panagor trademarks. In Switzerland the Panagor lenses were branded as Admiral GMC, "GMC" meaning "Gujer, Meuli & Co". Gujer, Meuli & Co still exists (albeit under a new name), and still is selling photo products.

Several websites claim Kino Precision and Komine as manufacturers of some the Panagor lenses. That may well be true for the Panagor 3.5/35-100mm as it looks and feels pretty well-made (and in fact quite similar to the Vivitar S1 28-90mm*). The same can be said about my Admiral (Panagor) 2.8/90mm Macro and the two Admiral (Panagor) tele lenses 3.5/200mm and 5.6/300mm I own. Compared to contemporary Canon / Minolta /Nikon lenses, all these lenses may be slightly inferior, but certainly not much.

S

* Engravings are made very nicely on both the Panagor 35-100mm as well as the Vivitar S1 28-90mm; the letters used are not identical though. That doesn't exclude Komine as a manufacturer of both lenses since the Vivitar-letters are specific to Vivitar (independently of the manufacturer).


PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 4:47 am    Post subject: Re: TEST Zeiss CY 3.3-4.5/28-85mm vs Vivitar S1 28-90mm & Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


I'm a bit surprised that the Zeiss, quite an expensive lens in its days (and realtively modern) doesn't really outperform the two other zoom/varifocal lenses (let alone the cheapo Minolta prime).
More information will follow.


This is in agreement with the official MTF chart where the lens performance drops off aggressively at 15-17mm depending on focal length. 28mm being a wild a crazy ride. However, before 15mm the performance is exceptional.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-vario-sonnar-33402885-en.pdf


PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
The Panagor does surprisingly well. How good is it at other focal lengths?


Well, after playing a bit with the Panagor today I have to say: Not so good!

Weather conditions were not favourable for tests (quickly changing light - sun, rain, mist, snow ...), but the Panagor 3.5/35-100mm definitely is pretty weak both at f=35mm as well as at f=100mm!

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
The Panagor does surprisingly well. How good is it at other focal lengths?


Well, after playing a bit with the Panagor today I have to say: Not so good!

Weather conditions were not favourable for tests (quickly changing light - sun, rain, mist, snow ...), but the Panagor 3.5/35-100mm definitely is pretty weak both at f=35mm as well as at f=100mm!

S


Bummer, thanks for testing 👍


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Weak means those are the focal length's where it shows character


PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2024 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Weak means those are the focal length's where it shows character


One man’s character is another man’s aberrations. Todays clinical lens is tomorrows character lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2024 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta MD 3.5-4.5/28-85mm vs Panagor PMC 3.5/35-100mm Zeiss CY 3.3-4/28-85mm vs @ 85mm.
100% crops from the corners JPGs from 24 MP FF Soiny A7II:

CLICK TWICE TO GET THE ORIGINAL IMAGE - IT'S BEST TO DOWNLOAD AND LOOK AT IT IN A DEDICATED PRPOGRAM SUCH AS PHOTOSHOP (MANY BROWSERS TEND TO RESIZE THE IMAGE TO SCREEN SIZE)



Both the Minolta as well as the Zeiss are pretty good at their long end; actually there's not much difference between images taken wide open and at f9. The Panagor - which has a completely different positive leading optical layout - is pretty soft wide open, and CAs are harsh and well visible. Stopped down to f11 the resolution is very good too, but CAs still are bit strong.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1