Compare Minolta MD 85/2, Nikkor Ai 85/2, Tokina AT-x 90/2.5

[caspert79]

I decided to put my recently acquired Minolta MD 85mm f/2 to the test by comparing it to 2 of my favorite lenses: the Nikkor Ai 85mm f/2 and Tokina At-x 90/2.5. The results are somewhat surprising.

To do the test as accurate as possible, I put the visual axis exactly perpendicular to the edge of the table. The front of the wine bottle and garlic are placed on equal distance to the edge. I put my Sony A7RII on a solid tripod and used the 2 sec self timer for all images.

First a comparison of bokeh:

The Minolta and Nikkor wide open @ f/2:

Bokeh@f2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

I don't see a clear difference between the two images. The bokeh balls of the Minolta seem slightly bigger, at least closer to the edge. I don't see a difference in contrast.

Then, all three lenses @ f/2.8:

Bokeh@f28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Bokeh of the Tokina is softer, but this is obvious since the aperture is wide open. The bokeh balls of the Nikkor and the Minolta are a bit harsh. Contrast seems slightly better of the Nikkor and Minolta compared to the Tokina, maybe because of less glass elements?

At f/4:

Bokeh@f4_ by devoscasper, on Flickr

Best bokeh is of the Tokina IMO. The Nikkor has 7 blades, whereas the Minolta has 6, but if this results in better bokeh is debatable.

At f/5.6:

Bokeh@f56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Similar findings as @f/4

At f/8:

Bokeh@f8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Similar findings as @f/4 and f/5.6

Then the 100% sized center crops.

First, the Minolta and Nikkor @ f/2:
CenterCrops@f2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Nikkor showed significantly more detail wide open. I did a few control shots to make sure the Minolta was not slightly out of focus. It was not. This is the maximum amount of detail I get from the Minolta wide open.
Let's see how the three lenses do @ f/2.8 (the Tokina @f/2.5):

CenterCrops@f2528 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Nikkor shows more detail than the Minolta. I think the Nikkor's contrast is the best of all,but the Tokina shows a tiny bit more detail than then Nikkor (in fact at a wider aperture).

Then, at f/4:

CenterCrops@f4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

To me it seems that best resolution comes from the Tokina, but the Nikkor is very close. The Minolta not exactly at the same level.

@5.6:
CenterCrops@f56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Resolution almost indistinguishable between the Nikkor and the Tokina. The Minolta slightly behind.

@f/8:
Differences between the three lenses is very small now. I think the Nikkor has the best contrast. Resolution at the level of the Tokina. The Minolta is not far behind.

Then, some 100% size corner comparisons:

First, the Minolta vs the Nikkor wide open @ f/2:
CornerCrops@f2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Nikkor beats the Minolta.

Then, the three lenses @ f/2.8 (and f/2.5 from the Tokina):
CornerCrops@f28 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Tokina is the only macro in the test, and clearly wins here. Sharp until the far corners.

@f/4:
CornerCrops@f4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Tokina 1st, Nikkor 2nd, Minolta 3rd.

@ f/5.6:
CornerCrops@f56 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Again, Tokina 1st, Nikkor 2nd and Minolta 3rd.

CornerCrops@f8 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Conclusion: I expected a bit more from the Minolta because of its reputation to be very sharp. Maybe it is sample variation, but the Nikkor showed to be sharper at every tested aperture, an even more so in the corners. The Tokina has the best performance across the frame, but I think the Nikkor's contrast is slightly better. What the comparison does confirm is what I already concluded from former tests: that the Nikkor is a highly underrated lens and IMO a best buy at this focal range.

[RokkorDoctor]

Thanks for the test, nice work.

Sample variation always needs to be taken into account indeed; I think that both my MDII and MDIII 85mm f/2 and a couple of other copies that have gone through my hands are sharper in the corners than what your copy suggests.

Nevertheless, I shoot (almost) exclusively Minolta MF lenses, and I have always scratched my head at the reputation of the MD 85 f/2. It is one of Minolta's sharper lenses for sure, but I have personally never considered it to be an exceptionally sharp lens amongst the Rokkors. My MDIII 75-150mm f/4 beats it on sharpness at any focal length (sharper than both my MDII 85mm f/2 and MDIII 85mm f/2).

Perhaps going against general opinion here, but in terms of overall IQ I actually prefer the Minolta Rokkor MC/MDI 85mm f/.1.7 to the MD 85mm f/2, despite being even softer than the f/2 and having lower contrast, and for bokeh I often prefer the MD 85mm f/2.8 Varisoft (depending on the subject, if some SA is desired as well, it needs half a notch on the softness setting to go from so-so bokeh to great bokeh).

Interesting to see the bokeh of the AT-X 90mm; from what I have seen before there should an aperture setting (between f/2.5 and f/4 maybe?) where it exhibits a saw-tooth edge to the aperture, visible in the bokeh as well, but I'm not seeing that in your images.

[caspert79]

Thanks RokkorDoctor for your interesting reply!

I'm actually very happy with my MDIII 105/2.5. I'm curious about the 85/1.7 as well, I should take a look at it.

I'll probably sell the MDIII again, not because I think it's a bad lens but as it doesn't really seem to add anyhing to my collection.

About the sawtooth bokeh of the Tokina: it's there at f/4, but it's usually not very prominent. If you look very closely, you can see it in the bokeh shot.

[Doc Sharptail]

I have an earlier variant of your 85/2 nikkor- the "K" 85/1.8.
It takes a little effort to get it properly focused, but once in focus, it's a hard lens to beat.
It not quite as nice as yours on corners wide open, but entirely manageable.
I won't be parting with it anytime soon though.
They are not often locally seen here.

-D.S.

[KEO]

My subjective experience with the Nikkor 85 2 confirms your testing. It's a really nice 85. It's also tiny and not very heavy.

The Tokina certainly performs well. It would be interesting to test it against the Leica Elmarit 90 2.8.

[caspert79]

[lumens pixel]

Did you focus the Minolta at taking aperture? There might be a hint of focus shift otherwise...

[caspert79]

[lumens pixel]

Thanks for the info and great test.

[caspert79]

[visualopsins]

for sharing your work!

Tokina is macro lens, flat field, yes?

[caspert79]

[cbass]

Thanks for these tests. Stevemark can be the infinity test guy and you can be the close focus guy.

[stevemark]

[lumens pixel]

On A7II at 2,8/ 2,5 and 4,0 my Minolta is sharper at infinity than my Tokina 90 2,5.

At short portrait distances the Tokina is a hair sharper and has little less CA.

Both excellent if you ask me but for landscapes the Minolta without hesitation.

[caspert79]

Here's a (limited) infinity test from Phillip Reeve, including the Tokina and Minolta.
Unfortunately the Nikkor is not included, because landscape pictures of this lens are quite impressive IMO. If I find a moment, I will do a comparison.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/85mm-comparison-minolta-tokina-canon-samyang/

[lumens pixel]

Fantastic. In any event the MD 100 f4 Macro will rule them all. Not at f2,0 obviously.

[caspert79]