View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:48 pm Post subject: All eight Minolta 28mm Rokkor computations compared |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Over the weekend i have re-done my earlier (not published) Full Frame tests of 28mm Rokkors. They confirmed what i already found in 2015; now i hav published a selection of the results:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/506-minolta-mc-md-28mm-lenses-on-24mp-full-frame
While such a test is far from complete, and not a detailed review, it may give some useful information.
Usually i did test 2-3 copies of each lens design, often in different barrels. Whenever i tested several copies of the same design, the results were identical. I am, therefore, confident that the results shown here are representative and reliable.
All eight known computations are described:
* 3.5/28mm [7/7], 67mm filter (AR / MC-I)
* 3.5/28mm [7/7], 55mm filter (MC-I / MC-II / MC-X)
* 3.5/28mm [5/5] (MC-X / MD-I / MD-II / MD-III)
* 2.8/28mm [7/7] (MC-X / MD-I / MD-II / MD-III)
* 2.8/28mm [5/5] (MD-III)
* 2.5/28mm [9/7] (MC-I / MC-II / MC-X)
* 2/28mm [10/9], floating element (MC-X / MD-I / MD-II)
* 2/28mm [9/9], floating element (MD-III; same optical formula as later AF 2/28mm)
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I rarely use my Rokkor SG 28 / 3.5, simply because I use my faster Vivitar S1. 28 / 1.9 when I want a Minolta 28, I guess if the Vivitar had a Pentax mount I'd use the Rokkor. But looking at your tests, I shall be making the effort to try the Rokkor. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16623 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
great work!! _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Stephan , I think there are many variations in the samples.
My 28 2.5 is clearly better than yours. It is very good indeed and sharp in the corners at f5.6. I think that my copy was never used.
It is largely superior to my MC 28 3.5 and also better than my MD 28 3.5 (5/5)
My recently acquired MD 28 2.8 (7/7) is a lemon .
All tested on A7. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
memetph wrote: |
Stephan , I think there are many variations in the samples.
My 28 2.5 is clearly better than yours. It is very good indeed and sharp in the corners at f5.6. I think that my copy was never used.
It is largely superior to my MC 28 3.5 and also better than my MD 28 3.5 (5/5)
My recently acquired MD 28 2.8 (7/7) is a lemon .
All tested on A7. |
Interesting - could you provide some images as well?
Maybe i'll publish the results from all tested lenses, as i've done lon time ago with four Minolta AF 28-135mm lenses (which were behaving nearly identical as well):
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/objektiv-vergleiche/230-310-minolta-af-4-4528-135mm-sample-variation
Up to now i've found very little sample variation with Minolta MC/MD lenses. Only two exceptions were one MC-II 2.8/135mm and one 4.5/75-200mm zoom.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012 Posts: 1839 Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
We must never forget that many of these lenses are quite old, they may have been dropped, opened, cleaned or whatever happened to them over the years. It might just be very possible that copy variation due to the mentioned factors is the reason for different opinions on performance.
Nevertheless: i really like your efforts and your website, it's a great resource!
You might just have bumped the prices on that final version of the 2/28 lens though.... _________________ My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Excellent work . ..as usual.
...actually guilty!... as I spent much more money than I expected buying old Minolta lenses reading your website...
No regret though... _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8
Last edited by Antoine on Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1615 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Excellent test! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
TrueLoveOne wrote: |
We must never forget that many of these lenses are quite old, they may have been dropped, opened, cleaned or whatever happened to them over the years. It might just be very possible that copy variation due to the mentioned factors is the reason for different opinions on performance.
|
Of course there are lots of problems when doing such "real" tests.
1) getting the lenses (they should look good from outside)
2) getting the adapters (i have about 5 Minolta adapters)
3) finding a good place
4) waiting for a nice, clear day and stable light conditions (usually one of those days that would be perfect for a paid job, BTW)
4) working quickly, yet without mistake
5) having an additional eye on potential thieves ... with all the lenses ready to be tested (if i'm working in town there are always some spectators ... and some of them didtry to rob me in the past)
Before doing any "real" test i usually do two or even three pre-tests to learn about the lenses. Some may be very good over most of the field, and drop suddenly in the very corner. Others may be good in the corners, and so-so in the field. Last but not least there's field curvature - and it is difficult to judge. For some users it's an annoying mistake, but in some conditions it can be a feature (if all other aberrations are well corrected). Like most testers, i do focus in the center, and i do consider field curvature as a mistake. And i do focus wide open, without re-focusing when stopping down (spherical aberrations can cause focus shift). And then - when the vintage lens is fast - you can focus on the red image, on the green image, on the blue image ... or somewhere in between: but where exactly??
During these pre-tests i usually check several samples of the same optical construction. Up to now, among several hundred primes tested, there there was one single prime lens (a Minolta MC-II 2.8/135mm) that was obvioulsy a "lemon"; all other double/triple/ ... /sevenfold (!) tested lenses did behave nearly identically (and i mean very very similar). - There is, for instance, an immediate and obvious difference between a Minolta AF 2.8/28mm and an AF 2/28mm lens, but no visible difference between several copies of the AF 2.8/28mm (or several 2/28mm lenses). I must admit that i've tested only Canon/Konica/Minolta/Nikon lenses with such accuracy; things may look different when i will start to check Tokinas, Tamrons and Soligors.
It is also a fact that Konica AR zooms had wildly varying perfomances whenever i was looking at several samples (not so with Canon FD, Minolta MC/MD/AF and Nikon Ai/AiS/AF zooms!). Specifically that was true for the Hexanon AR zooms 3.5/35-70mm, 2.8/35-100mm, the 4/70-150mm, 3.5/80-200mm and 4/80-200mm UC. Since Konica primes do have equally varying flange distances, maybe that's the origin of the varying zoom performances as well ?!?
So - i try do exclude some obvious mistakes made by other testers, but obviously i can' compete with Roger Cicala . Still, i'm very happy to have feedback and ideas for improving. Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TeemÅ
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TeemÅ wrote:
Although I have no intention to buy a 28mm lens (now owning the 24mm thanks to your resources), I really appreciate your effort and integrity in these tests. It's nice to read/view the results - and particularly a godsend for us collectors too. Cheers! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Well I tried it, and I now remember why I use the Vivitar S1 28 / 1.9. It's a better lens.
My MC W Rokkor - SG 28 / 3.5 didn't impress me at all today, of course it could be faulty despite it's nearly mint appearance? but if it isn't - then it's the softest 28 I've got. Wide open nothing is sharp, as it closes down 'some' sharpness appears. It's a shame, I really like all my other Rokkors. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
Why not include the Celtics? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest. |
Stephan,
be assured that there are people like me who really appreciate your work. Having done some lens comparisons myself I know how much work that is. Thank you for your efforts and please continue to publish your findings.
Cheers, _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest. |
Stephan,
be assured that there are people like me who really appreciate your work. Having done some lens comparisons myself I know how much work that is. Thank you for your efforts and please continue to publish your findings.
Cheers, |
I agree 100% _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest. |
Stephan,
be assured that there are people like me who really appreciate your work. Having done some lens comparisons myself I know how much work that is. Thank you for your efforts and please continue to publish your findings.
Cheers, |
+1
_________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Gardener wrote: |
Why not include the Celtics? |
Two reasons:
1) in the 28mm range, all Celtics have the same optical formula as the corresponding Rokkors
2) the Celtics are virtually non-existent here in Switzerland, and bying those cheap lenses in the US is not worth the pain
There are only two very early Celtics which differ in their optical construction from their Rokkor counterparts:
* a heavy [5/4] 2.8/135mm (610g) from 1974
* a [6/5] 4/200mm (595g) also from 1974
I do own the Celtic 2.8/135 [5/4], and frankly it doesn't look at all like a Minolta lens (engraving, size, focusing, ...).
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
konicamera
Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 746 Location: Warsaw, Poland
Expire: 2014-06-14
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
konicamera wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest.
Stephan |
This is most disgraceful. _________________
L'homme s'ennuie du bien, cherche le mieux, trouve le mal, et s'y soummet, crainte du pire. - Duc François-Gaston de Lévis
While it is nice to be important, it's more important to be nice.
URL: www.konicafiles.com
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rigel
Joined: 26 Nov 2015 Posts: 121 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rigel wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest. |
Stephan,
be assured that there are people like me who really appreciate your work. Having done some lens comparisons myself I know how much work that is. Thank you for your efforts and please continue to publish your findings.
Cheers, |
a bit OT ...
Well, I for one am a big Minolta vintage glass fan and artaphot is my reference site. Every time I see a Minolta offered on sale then the fist thing I do is "fly" to the site and check the comparisons ! after that I may look at the other "classical" sites like here and allphotolenses ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3460 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Reading things like "everything you do is bullshit" (and i do get these kind of emails occasionaly), however, makes me quite sad, to be honest. |
Stephan,
be assured that there are people like me who really appreciate your work. Having done some lens comparisons myself I know how much work that is. Thank you for your efforts and please continue to publish your findings.
Cheers, |
+1 _________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
So Stephan , my 28 2.5 is sharp in the corner at f8 and at f5.6 it is weaker in the extreme corners . It was windy so the leaves cannot be sharp.
f8
f5.6
f8
f5.6
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
@ memeth: Thank you for this additional information!
To me, your f5.6 and f8 crops do not look that different from my f5.6 and f11 crops (my f2.5 crop looks bad, but sadly you didn't show your lens at f2.5!).
The remaining (small) differences might be explainable if you were focusing on the corners whil i was focusing near the center of the image.
At the moment, i have access to only one of my three MC 2.5/28mm (MC-I, MC-II and MC-X), so i can't post crops from all of them yet. Probably on Monday, though . Tomorrow morning i can, however, post a 100% corner crop of an MC-X image focused to the corners.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 Posts: 2463 Location: NC, USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
Well I tried it, and I now remember why I use the Vivitar S1 28 / 1.9. It's a better lens.
My MC W Rokkor - SG 28 / 3.5 didn't impress me at all today, of course it could be faulty despite it's nearly mint appearance? but if it isn't - then it's the softest 28 I've got. Wide open nothing is sharp, as it closes down 'some' sharpness appears. It's a shame, I really like all my other Rokkors. |
I have a mint copy also. All versions of my Minolta 28mm 2.8 lenses are sharper then my SG 28mm f3.5.
That's not the only problem. When I tested the SG 28 3.5 at f3.5 near MFD, the resolution was much lower on this lens, then any of my Minolta 28mm 2.8 lenses. The 28mm f2.8's had much higher resolution at f2.8. _________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Thank you Walter, it is as I suspected - the lens isn't the best of Minolta's offerings. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|