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

Summicron 90/2 vs SMC Pentax 85/1.8 vs Bokina
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 1:30 pm    Post subject: Summicron 90/2 vs SMC Pentax 85/1.8 vs Bokina Reply with quote
Bokeh test:

bokehcomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

All 3 lenses are pretty good in the bokeh department. The differences are surprisingly small, but they exist:

- Wide open (f/2 ; f/1.Cool, I think the Summicron has the softest bokeh. The bokeh balls of the Pentax have a slightly more pronounced outlining.
- At f/2.5 ; f/2.8, the Tokina has the softest bokeh by a hair, but the main cause of this is probably: the slightly wider aperture, and the fact that the aperture is not involved yet. The 8 bladed aperture of the Pentax is most pronounced, as the Leitz has lots of aperture blades.
- At smaller apertures, the differences become smaller, but the Leitz is the best IMO because of it's very round aperture.

More tests follow as soon as I have some time.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not a "bokeh" guy, but my own limited tests - e. g. 28 different normal lenses and six different 100mm lenses - confirm that bokeh differences between lenses of a given focal length and speed usually are very small. Those differences are way to small to make a difference in real world photography.

Slight changes in focal lengths (e. g. from 50mm to 58mm) can make a pretty visible difference though, and of course the speed (aperture) will influence the out-of-focus areas pretty much as well.

That said, there are diffences since a few lenses do have an exceptionally nasty (e. g. Trioplan, Thambar or Tamron 2.8/75-150mm Soft) or an exceptionally smooth (e. g. Minolta 2.8/135mm STF) bokeh.

Let's start with the legendary Leitz Thambar 2.2/9cm. Wide open, Central filter used (but looks similar without center filter!):


Now the Minolta MD 2.8/85mm Soft Focus - first wide open (f2.Cool and maximal soft effect (level 3):


Minolta MD 2.8/85mm Soft Focus - still wide open (f2.8 ) but minimal soft effect (level 1):


S


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Thank you! caspert79!!! Personally I prefer the look of the Pentax, especially the more saturated colors, although that is probably my conscious/subconscious bias lol.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Like 1 Like 1 Thank you! caspert79!!! Personally I prefer the look of the Pentax, especially the more saturated colors, although that is probably my conscious/subconscious bias lol.


True that the Pentax seems a little more punchy (wide open at least). Hard for me to choose a favorite, I like the more classic look of the Summicron a lot as well: http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-canada-pre-asph-summicron-90mm-f-2-t84612.html

I guess it depends on the situation which one I will choose (and on the room in my camera bag; the Leitz is fairly big).


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I'm not a "bokeh" guy, but my own limited tests - e. g. 28 different normal lenses and six different 100mm lenses - confirm that bokeh differences between lenses of a given focal length and speed usually are very small. Those differences are way to small to make a difference in real world photography.


Not really true at 50mm normal SLR lenses, for instance. It is more true that lenses of a certain age have similar bokeh, maybe up to the point where we had slightly more competition for certain 'crowns' such as fast normal lens (e.g. 1930s Sonnar Vs Double-Gauss), but that competition took maybe another decade or so to iron out.

And granted, bokeh of lens made 50 years later, yes that's going to be better, but gets at the need to go beyond how you defined it.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree the differences in bokeh between many 85mm-100mm lenses are subtle, but there still are differences.

For example, I don’t particularly like the bokeh of the Minolta MD 85mm f/2, despite being excellent in other respects.

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

The bokeh of the Bokina looks better wide open IMO, despite being a slower lens.

The bokeh of the Rokkor 85/1.7 is very beautiful IMO, but from what I’ve seen quite a soft lens at wider apertures (matter of taste of course).

I think that the Pentax does a great job in terms of sharp, contrasty image against soft bokeh background.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I'm not a "bokeh" guy, but my own limited tests - e. g. 28 different normal lenses and six different 100mm lenses - confirm that bokeh differences between lenses of a given focal length and speed usually are very small. Those differences are way to small to make a difference in real world photography.

That said, there are diffences since a few lenses do have an exceptionally nasty (e. g. Trioplan, Thambar or Tamron 2.8/75-150mm Soft) or an exceptionally smooth (e. g. Minolta 2.8/135mm STF) bokeh.



If you had written that the same focal/aperture gives the same depth of field I would have concurred, but bokeh... well, I don't think so.
Let's leave out what we like and what we dislike. Personally I love the Trioplan and the Tamron SF zoom (I own a dozen or so of the former, up to 360mm focal, and two copies of the latter!) and of course I would never call their bokeh "nasty", but I respect other opinions. After all it's a matter of taste.
If you had chosen different lenses for your comparison there would have been visible differences. For example, if you had compared the Trioplan 2.8/100mm to, for example,, a Meyer 2.8/100mm and a Pentax 2.8/105mm, it would have been very simple to see that the Trioplan does soap bubbles with any possible OOF highlight, while the two others don't.
Can we call that a huge difference in bokeh rendering, or not?
Even if we don't consider bokeh balls, I would still not agree.
Even extremely similar lenses can have noticeable differences. Two of my favorite "bokeh lenses" in PK mount, the Pentax 1.2/50mm and one of the Tomioka 1.2/55mm, have an important difference that affects the way OOF areas are rendered. The Pentax suffers from bokeh fringing (longitudinal CA), while the various Tomiokas don't. The blueish fringing is at times quite easy to spot.
To sum it up, the way I see it is that while the AMOUNT of OOF blur is determined by focal and aperture (and only slightly influenced in our perception by the eventual presence of spheric aberration), the QUALITY of that blur can vary quite a lot, because some vintage lenses show a strong combination of aberrations, and other problems/characteristics like mechanical vignetting.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I'm not a "bokeh" guy, but my own limited tests - e. g. 28 different normal lenses and six different 100mm lenses - confirm that bokeh differences between lenses of a given focal length and speed usually are very small. Those differences are way to small to make a difference in real world photography.

That said, there are diffences since a few lenses do have an exceptionally nasty (e. g. Trioplan, Thambar or Tamron 2.8/75-150mm Soft) or an exceptionally smooth (e. g. Minolta 2.8/135mm STF) bokeh.



If you had written that the same focal/aperture gives the same depth of field I would have concurred, but bokeh... well, I don't think so.
Let's leave out what we like and what we dislike. Personally I love the Trioplan and the Tamron SF zoom (I own a dozen or so of the former, up to 360mm focal, and two copies of the latter!) and of course I would never call their bokeh "nasty", but I respect other opinions. After all it's a matter of taste.
If you had chosen different lenses for your comparison there would have been visible differences. For example, if you had compared the Trioplan 2.8/100mm to, for example,, a Meyer 2.8/100mm and a Pentax 2.8/105mm, it would have been very simple to see that the Trioplan does soap bubbles with any possible OOF highlight, while the two others don't.
Can we call that a huge difference in bokeh rendering, or not?
Even if we don't consider bokeh balls, I would still not agree.
Even extremely similar lenses can have noticeable differences. Two of my favorite "bokeh lenses" in PK mount, the Pentax 1.2/50mm and one of the Tomioka 1.2/55mm, have an important difference that affects the way OOF areas are rendered. The Pentax suffers from bokeh fringing (longitudinal CA), while the various Tomiokas don't. The blueish fringing is at times quite easy to spot.
To sum it up, the way I see it is that while the AMOUNT of OOF blur is determined by focal and aperture (and only slightly influenced in our perception by the eventual presence of spheric aberration), the QUALITY of that blur can vary quite a lot, because some vintage lenses show a strong combination of aberrations, and other problems/characteristics like mechanical vignetting.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bokeh differences can be subtle, but I see differences and I think they do contribute to the overall image. Depending on the situation these subtle differences can compound. How much depends on a large number of factors.

They have classifications of bokeh balls.



You can also see differences in structure in the out of focus area. I remember doing a test once and although bokeh was not the primary purpose I noticed that with one lens I could make out the house number in the defocused area while with another lens I could not even after stopping down a few stops.

Here is my typical bokeh torture test. The subject is a Soleri bell. The background is layers of palm leaves. I took three lenses that are roughly the same focal length and maximum aperture.

Konica 57 f/1.4


Minolta 58 f/1.4


Topcor 58 f/1.4


What you can see is variance in the structure of the palm leaves. The Minolta is the smoothest and the Konica and Topcor are visibly busier with the Topcor being the worst. The Topcor once it gets away from f/1.4 transforms into very smooth bokeh, but wide open it's a wild ride. The Minolta has the smoothest backgrounds in situations like this and I always take it for portraits where there is heavy shrubbery when I want a smooth background.

This also only addresses background blur. Foreground blur and how lenses behave there is different and that can also contribute to the photograph.

Even in the sample photos you posted I see obvious differences. The Thambar has very obviously visible bokeh balls with hard outlines. The Minolta with level 3 has no visible bokeh balls and a background lacking structure and low contrast. The Minolta with minimal soft effect still has a smooth background but more structure is visible and it is higher contrast.

Let's put it this way. A portrait with the subject placed in the center taken with a Helios 44 where the bokeh is swirling around the subject for me has a completely different aesthetic than the same subject in the center with a creamy background that's lower contrast.

Last edited by cbass on Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
how do you compare topcor vs minolta in sharpness portraits distance wide open central area? in this image i like smooth bokeh of minolta


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
how do you compare topcor vs minolta in sharpness portraits distance wide open central area? in this image i like smooth bokeh of minolta


You can go to my flickr album and pull the images if you want. They are SOOC jpeg. In this test I put the camera on a tripod. Used a 2 sec shutter delay. Set white balance to sunny. Locked ISO and aperture and let the shutter speed be decided by the camera. The bell was swinging a little in the wind, but I was not looking to optimize sharpness but do a bokeh test.

If you want to know which lens performs better wide open between the Minolta and Topcor, then all I can say is they are very comparable at portrait distances. Perhaps a slight edge to the Topcor, but this may vary depending on your copy. I find the Topcor focus ring more precise with a more dampened feel and longer throw making finer adjustments easier.

Both the Topcor and Minolta have spherical aberrations like all spherical lenses. I have not compared them side by side for that. Stopped down the Topcor has incredible resolution. It also produces high contrast images with very saturated colors. I like both of them. There is a significant difference in price. Like i said the Topcor bokeh becomes very smooth once you move away from f/1.4. Minolta bokeh remains smooth.

When it comes to f/1.4 lenses from the vintage era the Summilux-R 50 is the best performing with the least spherical aberrations once you get to around 2m. Near MFD the performance is much worse as it is optimized for infinity. The Summilux-M performs better than the Summilux-R wide open, but not sure how it does on mirrorless cameras. The M lenses generally have issues on mirrorless. Wide open the Summilux-R is also pretty crazy when it comes to bokeh. That can be a love/hate situation depending on your tastes. In the right circumstances it can work extremely well. In others it can look pretty nasty.

For best performance at f/1.4 buy a modern aspherical lens.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the details, in fact I do have the topcor but not the Minolta 58mm , as many times I've read it's too soft wide open.
In this case, from your pic I like the softness on the bokeh and I know the 1.2 might be the correct choice but it's just to scarce nowadays and expensive.
Regarding the summi lenses, .....I don't dream that far away , I'm just an amateur limited budget and Leica plays in a different league when we speak about money.
I did notice with busy bokeh, topcor it's not the best wide open, but depends on the circumstances of course.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Caspert, thank you for the test, it proves that a cheaper lens can stand against more expensive ones in most of the cases , and the subtle difference not always is payable. I am curious, in a busy background, how do these lenses compare, in these pictures the difference it's not that visible.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thank you for the details, in fact I do have the topcor but not the Minolta 58mm , as many times I've read it's too soft wide open.
In this case, from your pic I like the softness on the bokeh and I know the 1.2 might be the correct choice but it's just to scarce nowadays and expensive.


It may be my copy, but if it is focused well the performance wide open is good. I say it is very close to the Topcor at least in the close/mid distance tests I have done. I have not tested at infinity. However, the Minolta is harder to focus than the Topcor with precision, which may be a contributing factor.

Actually, the Minolta f/1.2 behaves like the Topcor except it's f/1.2 instead of f/1.4. Wide open the bokeh is a wild ride like with the Topcor and then it smooths out stopped down.

I don't know in your area, but I have seen the Minolta 58 f/1.4 sell for $50 or less. At that price you may as well just pick one up and see if you like it. I bought mine with a SRT 101 body for $35.

My favorite portrait lens currently is a Summicron-R 90 pre-Asph. The OP has a Summicron-M 90 pre-Asph 6 element version. This is an interesting lens and perhaps one day I will get to try a copy of one. The Summicron-R 90 focuses down to 0.7 m which is not common. It is not APO, but the CA are very minimal. Most other telephotos from that era have much more. I use mine almost exclusively at f/4.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Caspert, thank you for the test, it proves that a cheaper lens can stand against more expensive ones in most of the cases , and the subtle difference not always is payable. I am curious, in a busy background, how do these lenses compare, in these pictures the difference it's not that visible.


Good one, I will compare that another time.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Had some time this afternoon, so here a bokeh comparison in a different setting: a busy background with lots of foliage.

comparisonbokehfoliage by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Leitz produces cool colors compared to the other 2 lenses (which render fairly warm by the way).

The differences in the shape of the aperture seem to be a bit less evident in this setting. I think the three lenses handle this complex background pretty well.
The Leitz delivers the softest backgrounds IMO, but not by a huge margin.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thank you again, in this case it is more visible the difference in bokeh between the 2 of the 90mm and 85mm; i am amazed that the 5 mm would affect it that much (of course it is not only the FL difference that would affect bokeh at the same aperture).
It seems tokina and pentax render more equal colors, but leitz it is more unreal i guess.
Probably for portraits would be the better choice, if money and weight it is not a problem, otherwise, any of the other 2 lenses would be right for most of the real life shooting.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
thank you again, in this case it is more visible the difference in bokeh between the 2 of the 90mm and 85mm; i am amazed that the 5 mm would affect it that much (of course it is not only the FL difference that would affect bokeh at the same aperture).
It seems tokina and pentax render more equal colors, but leitz it is more unreal i guess.
Probably for portraits would be the better choice, if money and weight it is not a problem, otherwise, any of the other 2 lenses would be right for most of the real life shooting.


I find the Leitz on the cool side, and the others are a bit warmer than reality. Color balance is usually not really an issue for me because of pp.

As a landscape lens, both the Leitz and Tokina are excellent. The Leitz reaches corner sharpness 1 stop later than the Tokina because of field curvature. Sharpness stopped down is excellent of both lenses. I didn’t put the Pentax to the test for landscapes, my guess is that it’s more than adequate as well. All three very good lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thank you for the details, in fact I do have the topcor but not the Minolta 58mm , as many times I've read it's too soft wide open.


I am sorry to the OP if I have derailed this thread from the original intent. However, since you asked about the performance of the Minolta 58 f/1.4 wide open. Here is an old photograph I took wide open.



It is processed, and from what I remember I cranked up the structure slider in Capture One. However, the structure slider won't get you anywhere if there isn't any structure or detail to begin with. I would say sharpness wide open is not an issue. I see hairs. I see patterns in the cloth. I see pores.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@cbass, is this the MC-II version?


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've tried to go for a one mount all FL lens, but now I'm stuck with multiple mounts.
Did you happen to try the Minolta 85Mm 1.7? If so, is it same good as Pentax? I don't have Pentax, buy I do have Canon FD 85mm 1.8 and I would really like to know if Minolta is same good as this Canon or Pentax,for portraits . The reason would be to reduce number of mounts,but to be honest, I'm not sure that would be possible at all, as I do like the rendering of some specific lenses (topcor 1.4, FD 85mm 1.8, c/y distagon 25mm and 135mm 2.Cool. Wonder if you've ever dealt with the same dilemma.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
I've tried to go for a one mount all FL lens, but now I'm stuck with multiple mounts.
Did you happen to try the Minolta 85Mm 1.7? If so, is it same good as Pentax? I don't have Pentax, buy I do have Canon FD 85mm 1.8 and I would really like to know if Minolta is same good as this Canon or Pentax,for portraits . The reason would be to reduce number of mounts,but to be honest, I'm not sure that would be possible at all, as I do like the rendering of some specific lenses (topcor 1.4, FD 85mm 1.8, c/y distagon 25mm and 135mm 2.Cool. Wonder if you've ever dealt with the same dilemma.


The Minolta is great for portraits but softer at wide apertures than the Pentax. So it depends on what look you’re after. You could also look for a Tamron SP 90/2.5 in the right mount, if you don’t mind the slower aperture, saves you a lot of money.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
@cbass, is this the MC-II version?


I think so. It has a hills and valleys focus ring and serial number starts with 575.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello cbass, could not access your flickr album from the embedded images. Can you share a link to it?

Thank you.


cbass wrote:
kiddo wrote:
how do you compare topcor vs minolta in sharpness portraits distance wide open central area? in this image i like smooth bokeh of minolta


You can go to my flickr album and pull the images if you want. They are SOOC jpeg. In this test I put the camera on a tripod. Used a 2 sec shutter delay. Set white balance to sunny. Locked ISO and aperture and let the shutter speed be decided by the camera. The bell was swinging a little in the wind, but I was not looking to optimize sharpness but do a bokeh test.

If you want to know which lens performs better wide open between the Minolta and Topcor, then all I can say is they are very comparable at portrait distances. Perhaps a slight edge to the Topcor, but this may vary depending on your copy. I find the Topcor focus ring more precise with a more dampened feel and longer throw making finer adjustments easier.

Both the Topcor and Minolta have spherical aberrations like all spherical lenses. I have not compared them side by side for that. Stopped down the Topcor has incredible resolution. It also produces high contrast images with very saturated colors. I like both of them. There is a significant difference in price. Like i said the Topcor bokeh becomes very smooth once you move away from f/1.4. Minolta bokeh remains smooth.

When it comes to f/1.4 lenses from the vintage era the Summilux-R 50 is the best performing with the least spherical aberrations once you get to around 2m. Near MFD the performance is much worse as it is optimized for infinity. The Summilux-M performs better than the Summilux-R wide open, but not sure how it does on mirrorless cameras. The M lenses generally have issues on mirrorless. Wide open the Summilux-R is also pretty crazy when it comes to bokeh. That can be a love/hate situation depending on your tastes. In the right circumstances it can work extremely well. In others it can look pretty nasty.

For best performance at f/1.4 buy a modern aspherical lens.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@pabeu

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152195056@N07/

There is a lot of disorganized material in there. Good images. Comparisons. Etc.
I assume you know which images you are interested in.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2