Another lens test (25 lenses)

[miran]

So I'm stuck home with a bad back and can't do much else other than look outside á la Rear Window style. I don't have any neighbours with murderous inclinations though (I hope) so I decided instead of spying on them to rather "test" some of my lenses. It's a pretty useless test as it's not done in a very scientific way and also the lenses weren't subjected to very demanding conditions but there you go anyway. Perhaps someone will find it amusing if not useful. Also it was performed on an outdated 16Mp crop APS-C crop sensor rather than 24+ full frame which everybody theses days seems to be using.

Anyway, I tested three batches of lenses: normals (between 45 and 58m), wides (24 to 35mm) and 135mm teles. Each lens was shot at close focus distance (around 1m for normals, 0.8m for wides and 2m for teles) and at infinity. Every shot was repeated at wide open and closed down a few clicks.

Photos were shot in raw on a Sony NEX-6 and converted to jpeg with Rawtherapee using a pretty neutral profile (identical for every shot in each sequence). White balance was manually set to the same value for all photos in each set. Any colour differences are down to the lenses themselves and perhaps to tiny changes in light that occured during the test. The close focus shots were cropped a little to account for the tiny accidental changes in framing (my sturdy tripod isn't really that sturdy). For the infinity shots I didn't bother.

The comparison images have 6 colums: full frame at wide open and closed down, center crop wide open and closed down and corner (or side) crop wide open and closed down. The infinity corner crops really are extreme corners (lower right) while on the close focus shots I chose an area that best shows differences in the rendering of out of focus background (though I couldn't get any background higlights shooting out my window). The crops are 50% crops rather than 100% because I don't want to look at pixels. All images were treated with the same treatment as any real world photo including basic curve, noise reduction, sharpening, etc.

Here come the results:

1. Normals

The contenders (in no particular order) were:
- the humble and diminutive Industar 50-2 (50mm/3.5)
- the vintage and not very special Chinon 55mm/1.7
- the Russian SLR classics Helios 44-2 and 44M (optically nearly identical lenses, both 58mm/2.0)
- the Russian rangefinder classic Jupiter 8 (50mm/2.0)
- the east German (over-hyped?) classic Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm/1.8 (zebra variant, not MC)
- the Minolta staple MD Rokkor 50mm/1.4 (latest version I think)
- the amazing Minolta MD zoom 35-70mm/3.5 macro, shot at 50mm to see if a zoom can be as good as a prime
- the (almost) pancake Minolta MD Rokkor 45mm/2.0
- the medium format monster Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50mm/4.0 which doesn't really belong here, but it's a 50 so there you go

Results:




Conclusions:
- The winner in my opinion is Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm/1.4. Wide open it has a little glow and reduced contrast and shows some coloured outlines on out of focus edges but resolution is good all the way. And it's an f/1.4! Stopped down to f/2.0 or f/2.8 (not tested) it's as good as or better than any other lens in the test. The only real negative: ugly hexagons in out of focus highlights when stopped down.
- The Zeiss 50/1.8 is very good too, perhaps better than the Minolta in some ways. Wide open it's a little sharper and contrastier in the center and has smoother bokeh. Stopped down it's not as sharp but has better bokeh (no hexagons). And it focuses down to 35cm as opposed to 45cm.
- The 35-70 zoom in a phenomenal lens. Sharp from corner to corner at all apertures and all distances. Except that wide open for this lens means f/3.5. And it's double the size and weight. And it only focuses down to 80cm.
- The Helioses are special purpose lenses. I use them for portraits with wacky bokeh (swirls). They're sharp enough in the centre at all apertures but not so much out of the centre at any aperture and especially wide open.
- The others are nothing special. Well, the Industar is surprisingly good and punches well above its weight. And the Jupiter has the smoothest bokeh stopped down.

2. Wides

The contenders:
- the same Minolta zoom 35-70mm/3.5 shot at 35mm
- the latest incarnation of the Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35mm/1.8
- the legendary (for whatever reason) Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm/2.8 (zebra variant)
- the equally legendary Zeiss Jena 35mm/2.4 (newer black MC variant of the Flektogon)
- the modern autofocus and very affordable Sigma 30mm/2.8
- the simple and quiet Minolta MD W.Rokkor 28mm/2.8
- the low quality third party vintage wide Carenar branded 28mm/2.8 of unknown make
- the even lower quality Beroflex branded 25mm/3.5 also of unknown make
- the slightly less low quality but still decidedly third party lower cost alternative Exakta 24mm/2.8

Results:




Conclusions:
- The winner for me is the Minolta 35mm/1.8 simply because it's an f/1.8 and beats most others in this regard by more than a stop. Wide open it's not really that hot (glow, aberations, lower contrast) but it's easily sharp enough even in the corners. It's also no bigger and heavier than the Flektogons.
- The Fleks perform very similarly with the 2.8 being slightly less good (also it does much worse in backlight, not tested). They're a little sharper than the Minolta wide open at close focus but at infinity they need to be stopped down, otherwise the corners simply suck. I can't even imagine how they might look on fullframe. A big advantage is very close MFD at under 20cm (compared to 30cm for the Minolta) and the bokeh closed down is smoother. Other than that the Minolta is better.
- The zoom is again phenomenal for what it is. Sharp, sharp and sharp.
- The 28mm Minolta is also very impressive at all apertures.
- The 3rd party vintage wides are predictably awful and only conditionally usable for perhaps some artistic purposes as they are not really capable of producing technically good images at any setting.
- The modern Sigma is here just for comparison really, but it easily beats all vintage lenses. It's sharper and has more contrast than any other lens even wide open and from corner to corner. That despite being aps-c and costing new less than some of the others in this test. The colour is consistently different though, with a distinct magenta cast. Also MFD is not very special and the handling is quite bad (plasticky feel and almost unusable manual focus).

3. Teles

The conteders:
- the universally liked Minolta MD 135mm/3.5
- the great (or is it?) Zeiss Jena 135mm/3.5 (zebra variant)
- the ubiquitous Pentacon 135mm/2.8 (the newer less desirable version with the 6 bladed aperture)
- the very special Meyer-Optik Görlitz Primotar 135mm/3.5
- the less than average generic 3rd party Carenar branded 135mm/2.8 of unknown make
- cheap and plastic Minolta AF zoom 70-210mm/3.5-4.5 of the 90's, shot at 135mm

Results:




Conclusions:
- Unsurprisingly I will go for the Zeiss Jena here. My copy looks quite badly abused on the outside but optically it's very nice. Especially at close focus it's very sharp already from wide open and bokeh is nice all the way (I might have accidentally shot the closed down shot at f/5.6 rather than f/8, I don't know).
- The Pentacon's performance is very similar to the Zeiss, except that it's faster and so has more background blur wide open. It only lags behind wide open at infinity. Also my copy is defective as the aperture only closes down to f/5.6.
- The Minolta is very good stopped down, but wide open falls a bit behind. It's smaller and light though and it handles much better (smoother focus ring and snapier aperture ring).
- The Primotar is a special purpose lens for making photos with an artistic touch. Especially bokeh is quite unique. Technically it can't compete with the others though.
- The Carenar and plastic Minolta zoom are just bad with no redeeming qualities.

---

So there you go, a couple of days well spent. I hope my back gets better soon so I can go back to work next week to do something more productive.


UPDATE: 2016-08-20

Added another test scene, engineered specifically to test the performance of the lenses with a strong light source just outside the frame (top left), CAs on shiny metal parts in and out of focus, and out of focus highlights. You can make your own conclusions but predictably some lenses here suffer while others don't even break sweat. (Btw, all lenses were intentionally shot without a hood. With a proper hood or even just shielding the lens with a hand the performance of the lenses that have problems improves dramatically.)

Among the normals the Pancolar is now looking quite strong as well as the 45mm/2 Rokkor while the 50/1.4 struggles a bit. Of the two Helioses the older one flares badly but the other on is ok. The 35-70 zoom and the Jupiter were shot from a different position further away from the subject because they can't focus close enough. The photos were then cropped and resized to match with the others, losing some resolution in the process, so it's difficult to compare:



In the wide angle camp the two Flektogons now show dramatically different behaviour. The 2.8 zebra is just ugly with veling flare, loss of contrast and an ugly blue ghost that doesn't improve even when stopping down. The 2.4 MC on the other hand is perfectly fine and can compete with the best. It's better in the center than the 35/1.8 Rokkor but has worse OOF highlights. Choose your preference. The 35-70 zoom again loses resolution because it cant focus clsoe enough for this test. The modern Sigma is again in a league of its own, the 28/2.8 Rokkor is solid while the 3 cheap lenses from the lower tier don't stand a chance.



And finally in the 135mm contest the Pentacon takes the lead. The Zeiss has worse control of CA and the Rokkor is a bit on the soft side wide open. And of course the Pentacon is faster at f/2.8 vs f/3.5.

[papasito]

[Lloydy]

I seem to have most of the lenses you've appraised, and I wouldn't argue with your conclusions. Great test.

I hope you back recovers soon.

[Jiaming]

[Mir]

I love your useless lens test !

Thanks for sharing !

[calvin83]

Good to hear you like the MD 35/1.8. It works pretty well on both APS-C and FF.

[tb_a]

[wolan]

Please rename this thread to "Another useful lens test"!

[uddhava]

Thank you for the information.

[miran]

Thanks all for the kind words and thumbs up I really have to also make a contrast and flare test against light and a more meaningful bokeh evaluation.

[notko]

[Raxar]

[devinw]

Wow, thanks for the test! I have both that 35-70mm zoom and the Rokkor 50/1.4 and find them both to be fantastically sharp lenses, so I agree with you!

Do you happen to have the Rokkor MD 24mm f2.8? I just picked one of those up and am wondering what other people think of it.

[tb_a]

[miran]

[miran]

For your enjoyment the first post has been supplemented with another test scenario. Also changed thread title.

[papasito]

I have the Md I 24/2,8 (9 elements).
It has the same fórmula than them versión but they are a bit reduced.

The borders are soft. Some CA lateral and transversal.

Nice center sharpness.

Colors in the cold side.

The canon FDn 24/2,8 and the Olympus 24/2 are better for me.

The Ai Nikkor is as good as Md.

I use the Md. But if I can, I will bought the Olympus or Canon nfd.

Good coated.

Better aperture in the complete image is the f/11

[kds315*]

Congrats, amazing work you've done!!

[devinw]

[EDGARVE]

[Oldhand]

Many thanks for your hard work with these.
It is appreciated
OH

[evilhomura89]

[miran]

Sure, when I get the chance, I will. For the time being, here's the album containing pictures of each of these lenses (and others): https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZkfdzL. Just to give a rough idea.

[AndreaEOS]

Great test, many thanks,
in fifty's range I have some of your lens, and some other, and the conclusion are pratically the same of your test.
absolute intresting and useful for me the 135mm test where I have the primotar exactly for the porpouse you say, and where I'm looking for same better lens in term of sharp .
Very interesting also the job on wide , where i have not activity of search.
Thanks again to share the result and for the time you dedicate.
Regards
Andrea

[Antoine]

Good work Miran!
Could not bothered to make tests but always reassuring to read my lenses are any good.
Just need to make better use of them