| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2979
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2024 11:18 am Post subject: Minolta AF 80-200/2.8 vs Mamiya C 105-210/4.5 ULD |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
Infinity comparison between these 2 lenses.
Note: I redid the corners @ 150mm and 200mm because the corners were not at the same distance as the center. I used to house to focus on, and then reframed it into the corner.
By the way: I used MF for both lenses.
Results @ respectively 105mm / 150mm / 200mm:
 comparison105mm by devoscasper, on Flickr
 bcomparison150mm by devoscasper, on Flickr
 bcomparison200mm by devoscasper, on Flickr
Quite a surprise here. The Mamiya seems to beat the Minolta in most circumstances. Only @ 150mm the Mamiya has quite weak corners.
Not bad for a lens that can be had for near nothing from Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1046
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Could be some sample variation in the case of the Minolta- their lenses were certainly not immune in some instances.
What gets me is the magnification difference shown between them at 105mm. The rest of it seems to be more or less straight forward comparison.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3773
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| Doc Sharptail wrote: |
Could be some sample variation ...
-D.S. |
I have been using the Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm both in its black and its white versions for quite some time, along with the later MinAF 2.8/70-200 APO G SSM and its Sony cousin, the SAL 2.8/70-200m G. I also have the Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm and the Sekor C 105-210mm ULD.
My ULD-Sekor - although looking like new - is by far the worst of the lenses mentioned above. Sample variation certainly is an issue even with modern zoom, let alone with older complicated zooms.
That said, even one single sample of a zoom lens can vary visibly from image to image. On the MinAF 2.8/70-200 Apo G SSM I found that approaching a certain focal length from the long end causes a different preformance/resolution, compared to approaching the same focal length from the short end ... and there are many other problems involved in testing/comparing vintage zoom lenses on modern cameras ...
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2979
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| Doc Sharptail wrote: |
Could be some sample variation ...
-D.S. |
I have been using the Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm both in its black and its white versions for quite some time, along with the later MinAF 2.8/70-200 APO G SSM and its Sony cousin, the SAL 2.8/70-200m G. I also have the Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm and the Sekor C 105-210mm ULD.
My ULD-Sekor - although looking like new - is by far the worst of the lenses mentioned above. Sample variation certainly is an issue even with modern zoom, let alone with older complicated zooms.
That said, even one single sample of a zoom lens can vary visibly from image to image. On the MinAF 2.8/70-200 Apo G SSM I found that approaching a certain focal length from the long end causes a different preformance/resolution, compared to approaching the same focal length from the short end ... and there are many other problems involved in testing/comparing vintage zoom lenses on modern cameras ... |
The Minolta I have looks very sharp when photographing closer subjects. I've owned two samples of the Mamiya, and while the first one was very good, the current one seems even better (although not very consistent at all focal lengths). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 836
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I am sorry to say that blurring completely cows in the background is certainly very bad behaviour. Hence Minolta being the better lens. 
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1046
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2024 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
That said, even one single sample of a zoom lens can vary visibly from image to image. On the MinAF 2.8/70-200 Apo G SSM I found that approaching a certain focal length from the long end causes a different preformance/resolution, compared to approaching the same focal length from the short end ... and there are many other problems involved in testing/comparing vintage zoom lenses on modern cameras ... |
This is interesting commentary.
I've experienced similar behavior with a few zooms as well- most notably a couple of nikkors, and the once popular Series 1 70-210.
Worst of the lot for this was the nikkor 80-200 f4, but that particular sample may have been defective from the factory...
More commonly discussed is focus rotation direction having similar effects on the final image.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
