Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Zuiko 50mm f/1.4

[caspert79]

Bought the Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 after several sources praising its great quality as a landscape lens (corner to corner sharpness basically). After taking this lens with me on my holiday, I can indeed confirm that this is the case. I decided to compare the lens to my Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4, which is also no slouch in this regard. This is performance on a 42+ mp sensor.

Infitnity Comparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Although the Mamiya shows good detail in the corners at wide apertures (compared to most vintage lenses), the Zuiko does a better job at most aperture values. From f/8 on, the differences are small.
Very good job of the Zuiko. One thing that surprised me, is that the Zuiko's FOV is in fact wider than than the Mamiya's, because I believed the actual focal length of the Mamiya to be less than 50mm.

How does the Zuiko compare to the Mamiya when it comes to close subjects?
closefocuscomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Mamiya draws close subjects sharper than the Zuiko at wider apertures. The difference becomes insignificant @f/4.

Conclusion: the Zuiko is probably my best standard lens when it comes to corner-to-corner sharpness (macro's not included). It's quite soft though at close focusing distances. In that case, I would happily grab the Mamiya.

Example image Zuiko (click for full size). It's able to capture lots of detail in landscape images.
AndlauZuiko5014145 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Example image Mamiya wide open (click for full size). With close focusing object, the lens shines @ wide apertures. Check detail in eye and hair.
DSC04028 by devoscasper, on Flickr

[Dejan]

At least with your samples Mamiya seems to be visibly better with open aperture. On the other hand, it's got strong coma even at F2. Interesting comparison, I've never even considered this Mamiya (I guess because I don't see it that often).

[kiddo]

nice comparison, but i see zuiko doing pretty bad in the center of most of the apertures comparing to mamiya, indeed the corners are better on zuiko, so i wonder if it has to do with the field curvature?

[kiddo]

[caspert79]

[Pancolart]

the last two photos, huh. This is probably really hard to beat. The detail is amazing.

[Alun Thomas]

It's quite surprising to see the fringing on the guy riding his bike at F2 with the Zuiko lens, I really would have expected the other dark/light edges to show it too but they don't much. I use elements like that to test for fringing, but maybe my tests aren't as well designed as they could be.

[cbass]

[caspert79]

[Ernst Dinkla]

Thank you for the testing. According to magazine tests the measured focal length of the Olympus OM is 52,0mm, the Mamiya EF 51,4mm. The Olympus had an SN below 700.000 so it could be that the later versions had a change in optical design and by that a shorter focal length and a wider angle of view. Just trying to find a cause for what you observed.
Interesting to see that of two Planars tested in that period, both went beyond the 5% deviation on the focal length with 52,6mm measured.

[caspert79]

[caspert79]

There is a little bit of play on the horizontal adjustment of my tripod, that's why the Zuiko seemed a bit wider. But now looking at the source images, the difference is almost zero.

Let's do another comparison, this time against the Minolta MD 50mm f/2, which is known to be a great landscape lens:

comparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Excuse me for the absence of 1 crop (a passing bus blocked the center of the image). Anyway, the real importance here are the corners.

Observations:
1) The Zuiko's corner get sharper sooner; at f/4 they are about perfect on a 42+ mp sensor; at f/2.8 they are usable, which is excellent.
@ f/8, corners of both lenses are about equally sharp.
2) The images from the Minolta seem more contrasty than the Zuiko's
3) The images of the Minolta are somewhat cleaner in terms of blue fringing.

It is quite an achievement of the Zuiko to reach excellent corner-to-corner sharpness @ f/4. The question is, what is the practical benefit in this digital age?
The better landscape lens may still be the Minolta, which has better contrast and CA control. And the better all-rounder may be the Mamiya, which is much sharper when it concerns close by objects, and becomes excellent for landscapes as well once stopped down a little.

Despite the Zuiko not being a 'Swiss army knife', I think the Zuiko's special feat makes it an interesting lens for collectors. Also, its handling is very nice; build quality is excellent.

[ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars]

The website below states versions of this lens with serial numbers above 1.1 mio as the last and best iteration of the 1.4/50 Zuiko. They´re supposed to be sharper in the center, softer at edges compared to those between 1 - 1.1 mio: still excellent, slightly sharper in the corners, slightly softer in the center. Those with serial numbers below 1 mio supposedly less performant, especially those which carry the G.ZUIKO designation. Quality variations might also come into play. Best optical performance of them all at f/4.

It´s unfortunately German only, so if you find it interesting, please consider automatic translation.

https://olypedia.de/index.php?title=Zuiko_Auto-S_1:1,4/50_mm

I was just a bit puzzled by your results at close focus distance. I did quite a bit quite close to 0,45 with the Zuiko, even wide open, and always found it surprisingly good. I unfortunately don´t own a Mamiya, so I just took some of mine more interesting 50s I else had to compare (was a boring online meeting and much too late in the day anyway). So my apologies in advance for expanding this thread to a Olympus-Olympus-Nikkor-Hexanon comparison. And for the boring motive on my home office desk

The Zuiko 1.4/50 is serial number 1.162.112, so it´s the latest version built by Olympus
The Nikkor is the 1.4/50 AiS (serial number 5.314.790)
The Zuiko 1.8/50 is also the latest version, serial number on the bayonet already, reads 2.898.489
The Hexanon 1.7/50 says "3T" on the bayonet, so it´s built 06/73 serial number 7.814.821

What I actually wanted to prove (mostly to myself, I guess): I don´t see that softness in the 1.4/50 Zuiko at close focus distance. The Hexanon ist better to my eye, yes, but... Probably give your Zuiko another chance with an object that has clearly pronounced contrast on corners, I think it must have been hard to focus on that blossom.

The Mamiya looks excellent, btw. and I shall consider to get one, certainly. So please, don´t mistake that as a comparison in length I attempt to do here, eh, you know

All taken wide open.

#1 Center


#2 Edge

[caspert79]

Thanks for your comments. Frankly I wonder if the 1.000.000 - 1.100.000 could really have sharper corners than the last series. Because it’s already extremely good, and I wonder if this has been established on a camera with 42 mp or more.

I’ve been actually really carefull with focusing the Zuiko on the close by object (did multiple series and refocused at every aperture rule out the effects of focus shift). Also, on my holidays I noticed it was not particularly sharp in this setting (unless stopped down quite a bit). Having said that, I don’t have many f/1.4 lenses to compare it to. Wide open the Mamiya is definitely much sharper (close focus) than my Petri 55/1.4. I also have a Chinon 55/1.4, but haven’t compared them. I did however compare the Mamiya against the Ttartisan 50/1.4 aspherical and it’s about equally sharp at the wide apertures.

http://forum.mflenses.com/mamiya-ef-50mm-f-1-4-vs-tt-artisan-50mm-f-1-4-asph-t84633.html

So I guess the Mamiya is a particularly sharp lens for its age, so maybe that explains the fairly big difference with the Zuiko.

[ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars]

Thank you too for these comparisons you regularly show here. They are always interesting. It´s a mild poke in the ribs for me to finally do such series with my lenses of a similar focal length and critically check pros and cons. That could finally lead to a more considered choosing for certain motives. Not that I wouldn´t know my lenses a bit, but until now, I pick a lens just out of the day´s mood or a certain feeling it could be right. Well, it´s a hobby, not that my life would depend on it

By the way, did you also look for micro contrast? I find the Zuiko excels in this regard, showing considerably more detail, especially in dark areas. If you look at the first comparison series at f2.8 and scrutinize the white blinders in the center crop, there´s some green reflection to be seen that´s a lot less pronounced in the Mamiya. The almost black bottom window left to it also shows structure from reflection in the Zuiko image that´s missing in the Mamiya.
In the crop from the edge, there´s more detail in the bush immediately to the right of the white car. Above the white car and below the blinders is structure in the almost dark area of the window pane.

[caspert79]

[caspert79]

Did an additional little test to establish center sharpness wide open @ short distance:

ComparisonWideOpen by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Mamiya is the sharpest by far, followed by the Chinon. The Zuiko is in between the Petri and the Chinon.

[caspert79]

Another image from the Mamiya @ f/1.4. Click for full size.
If you want sharpness wide open, but like the character of vintage lenses at the same time, this is a good choice.

Mamiyaportret1447 by devoscasper, on Flickr

This is how it compares to a modern lens: TTartisan 50mm f/1.4 aspherical.
TTArtisanportret1446 by devoscasper, on Flickr

[calvin83]

I can't view the mamiya at 100% but the TTartisan seems have pretty good sharpness wo.

[caspert79]

[ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars]

[caspert79]

[stevemark]

[caspert79]

[Ernst Dinkla]