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

A quick comparison: Minolta MD 85/2 vs Canon nFD 85/1.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:23 pm    Post subject: A quick comparison: Minolta MD 85/2 vs Canon nFD 85/1.8 Reply with quote
I've had a Canon nFD 85/1.8 lying around here for a long time, it was quickly displaced by a Minolta MD85/2 (I did a quick comparison on a Fuji X-E1 back then, see here).
The Canon has already found a buyer but I just got a Canon-FD->Sony-E adapter (I have an nFD50/1.4 and an nFD300/5.6 incoming) so I thought I'd finally compare the two on my A7.

I'll add a close-up comparison tomorrow.

Scene:


Sharpening:

(no sharpening on export)


Canon - f/1.8


Minolta - f/2


Canon - f/2.2(?)


Minolta - f/2.8


Canon - f/2.8


Minolta - f/3.4


Canon - f/3.4


Minolta - f/4


Canon - f/4


Minolta - f/4.8


Canon - f/4.8


Minolta - f/5.6


Canon - f/5.6


Minolta - f/6.7


Canon - f/6.7


Minolta - f/8


Canon - f/8


Minolta - f/9.5


Canon - f/9.5


Minolta - f/11


Canon - f/11


PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for going to the trouble to make this comparison. I own a copy of the Canon nFD 85mm f/1.8, but I haven't used it much. I got mine when I bought a rather large FD outfit for peanuts a couple years ago (A-1 and four lenses with hoods for $125). When I shoot with an 85mm, usually my Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 Aspherical gets the nod. The f/1.8 version is a cute, heavy little lump, though.

Well, I took a close look at your images, and my conclusion is there is really no difference between the two optics once they've been stopped down from wide open. At f/1.8, the Canon is just as sharp as the Minolta, but the Minolta's contrast is noticeably better. After that, though, they're essentially the same to my eye. What I like about both lenses is they are essentially just as sharp at f/11 as they are wide open, or close to it. That's a real feat of design and engineering.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Thanks for going to the trouble to make this comparison. I own a copy of the Canon nFD 85mm f/1.8, but I haven't used it much. I got mine when I bought a rather large FD outfit for peanuts a couple years ago (A-1 and four lenses with hoods for $125). When I shoot with an 85mm, usually my Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 Aspherical gets the nod. The f/1.8 version is a cute, heavy little lump, though.


What a coincidence, that's how I got mine too (T90 + nFD28/2.8, nFD50/1.8, nFD85/1.8, FD200/2.8 - ~100€ for the lot).
The Canon 85/1.2 (probably the more common nFD85/1.2L) is on top of my wishlist, I think it would make a nice pair with the tiny MD85/2 (64x54mm, 280g).

cooltouch wrote:
Well, I took a close look at your images, and my conclusion is there is really no difference between the two optics once they've been stopped down from wide open. At f/1.8, the Canon is just as sharp as the Minolta, but the Minolta's contrast is noticeably better. After that, though, they're essentially the same to my eye. What I like about both lenses is they are essentially just as sharp at f/11 as they are wide open, or close to it. That's a real feat of design and engineering.


I'd agree with you that the difference in contrast wide open is more noticable/important but I wouldn't call them equally sharp either.

I grabbed a quick 200% crop:


PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My conclusion is unchanged. There is a noticeable haze, if you will, with the Canon's pic. But if you look beyond the haze, I think you'll find that the Canon's image contains just as much detailed information as the Minolta's. This reminds me of an article that was written by some folks at Zeiss a number of years ago, which discussed sharpness and contrast, and showed how images with higher contrast appeared to be sharper than images with lower contrast, even though the lower contrast images might hold more detail. It was an eye-opener for me.

I found it. Here it is. It was published in 1976, but its points are still valid even in this digital age:
http://www.zeisscamera.com/doc_ResContrast.shtml

Here's your 200% crop, in which I have applied a contrast adjustment to the Canon's image only. I think this demonstrates what I mean.


Last edited by cooltouch on Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:28 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
My conclusion is unchanged. There is a noticeable haze, if you will, with the Canon's pic.

I made the same observation for most of my about Canon FD lenses: "Canon Haze" ... compared to the "Minolta Clarity" i know from most my >100 Minolta MC/MD lenses. Notable exceptions are, of course, the Canon L tele lenses.

cooltouch wrote:

But if you look beyond the haze, I think you'll find that the Canon's image contains just as much detailed information as the Minolta's.

Absolutely true. Often i think the Canon may have even more detail than the corresponding Minolta, but that remains to be really proven by test images with >50MP cameras.

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