Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro

[caspert79]

Out of curiosity I compared the Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Mamiya E 50mm f/3.5 macro at infinity. Of course a macro should primarily perform at macro range, but still it can be nice to bring a macro lens and use it for other purposes as well, landscapes for example. Note: there could be a slight difference in the actual aperture, as the Fotodiox-Pro adapter doesn't show the exact aperture. I used shutter speeds to determine the aperture value.

First, an oversight image from which I took the crops to compare:
oversight by devoscasper, on Flickr

Comparison center crops:
centercropscomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Mamiya EF 50/1.4 shows already really good detail in the center wide open (keep in mind this is 42+ mp sensor). From f/2, the crops are pretty much tack sharp. @f/8 diffraction kicks in (because of the adapter the aperture opening could be in fact a bit smaller than that, maybe around f/9).

The Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro shows very good detail as well, but not as good as the EF 50/1.4. Only at f/8, it suffers less from diffraction it seems.

Then, the extreme corner crops:
cornercropscomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

From f/2.8 on, the Mamiya EF 50/1.4 has already very good corners. They improve @ f/4.
The Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro suffers from fairly high vignetting @ f/3.5. It clears up, when stopped down. Best corner crops IMO are from the macro E 50/3.5 stopped down to f/5.6: corner sharpness is pretty much perfect.

Conclusion: the Mamiya E 50/3.5 macro seems to do well as a landscape lens. It has to be stopped down a little bit to get rid of the vignetting. @f/5.6 is has better corners than the EF 50/1.4, but the center stays ever so slightly behind. If you need corner to corner sharpness, the 50/3.5 used @ f/5.6 is probably the better choice. The Mamiya EF shows very good center sharpness already @ f/2 and you don't have to stop down much to get good corners as well. In low light situations ,or where corner-to-corner sharpness is less important, the better choice. Plus the added benefit of great bokeh.

[Alsatian2017]

[caspert79]

[Doc Sharptail]

The 1.4 seems to be fairly good where c/a's are concerned wide open.
Was the sun behind you?
Interesting results.

-D.S.

[stevemark]

[kiddo]

Could you do some tests on mfd of 1.4 and same distance on macro, maybe using a Nex extension ring , please? Thanks

[stevemark]

[kiddo]

[caspert79]

[caspert79]

Did a new test, this time with timer and tripod:
comparisonV2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Conclusion: center resolution of both lenses very good. At f/3.5 / f/4, corners of the EF 50/1.4 get pretty good; at this setting the 50/3.5 macro still suffers from vignetting. At smaller apertures, both lenses show very good corners, but the macro is slightly better.

[stevemark]

oh wow ... I didn't ask for a repetition of your test since I know that it's quite a lot of work ... it was rather a suggestion fpr your upcoming comparisons! But thanks anyway! Testing shows that both these lenses are very good indeed.

I just have finished a series of preliminary test with 50mm / 55mm macro lenses at infinity (final testing needs better weather).

1) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 is superior to the Canon nFD 3.5/50 and the Konica AR 3.5/55
2) At f8 the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50 seems be slightly inferior to the Minolta MD 3.5/50, the Nikkor AiS 2.8/55, and the Pentax A 2.8/50.
3) The Nikkor Ai 3.5/55, the Vivitar 2.8/55 and the Yashica ML 2.8/55 seem to be about equal to the Mamiya Sekor E 3.5/50.

S

[caspert79]

[stevemark]