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

What's the latest lens you added to your collection?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2023 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Baekmann wrote:

A 24mm f2.8 Canon EF. ...

My first ever Canon EF lens.


Same here - I only have a handful of Canon EF lenses: An early EF 28-70mm as well as the first generation EF 4/70-210mm plus the EF 1.4/50mm. Their appearance (too much plastics), handling (nearly impossible MF) as well as surprisingly low performance in case of the 4/70-210mm didn't presuade me. Later professional grade EF lenses are different beasts of course, even though some of them seem to have problems with the built-in motors for focusing and aperture control. I still have a EF 2.8/24-70mm here which needs servicing ...

Would be interesting to see how your "new" 2.8/24mm compares to a well known MF 2.8/24mm lens ...

S


Unfortunately I don't have an other 24mm lens to compare it to, but I'll try to post some 'first impression' pictures somewhere later this week.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Baekmann wrote:
(and an EOS 630 that I will probably never use).


why not?

It is one of those early eos-cameras: well built and nice to use
only problem it is prone to battery drain and the battery is expensive


PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bargain spree continues, new addition is Heinz Kilfitt Munchen Kilar 135mm/f:3.8 (still with courier)

(plus i got Triotar 135/3.5, some non-CZJ lenses with CZJ logo Smile, ...)


PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sigma Super Wide II 2-8/24mm (MF version, Minolta MD mount).




As others have remarked earler, the lens performs very well. At infinity detail resolution it is comparable to well known lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/24mm, the Minolta MD-III 2.8/24mm or the AiS Nikkor 2.8/24mm. It's clearly better than e. g. the older Minolta MC-X/MD-I 2.8/24mm or the Konica AR 2.8/24mm (first computation). Since the Sigma has no floating elements, I suspect it to have an inferior performance al close distances (Canon nFD, Minolta MC/MD and Nikkor AiS all have floating elements).


PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Two Tamrons, also from the wastebin of a local photo store:



The Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300mm is a well known tele zoom from the early 1980s. It's a pretty good performer, especially when you consider its 5x zoom range. That said the Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm "big beercan" (the early large full-metal zoom) is somehow better (if you really want a vintage zoom in this range).

The other lens is a pretty old Auto Tamron 3.5/200mm. It's a small, lightweight and pretty fast 200mm lens from 1976.
It is soft wide open, has simply "unsharp" corners at f3.5 and needs to be stopped down to f8 for decent (not good!) image quality (24 MP FF). A "low performer", maybe OK for low contrast portraits though - but MFD is 2.5m, not exactly sufficient for real portraiture ...

S


PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2023 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Sigma Super Wide II 2-8/24mm (MF version, Minolta MD mount).




As others have remarked earler, the lens performs very well. At infinity detail resolution it is comparable to well known lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/24mm, the Minolta MD-III 2.8/24mm or the AiS Nikkor 2.8/24mm. It's clearly better than e. g. the older Minolta MC-X/MD-I 2.8/24mm or the Konica AR 2.8/24mm (first computation). Since the Sigma has no floating elements, I suspect it to have an inferior performance al close distances (Canon nFD, Minolta MC/MD and Nikkor AiS all have floating elements).


If you have a good copy you will like this one.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2023 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

If you have a good copy you will like this one.


Yeah - I did a quick'n'dirty side-by-side comparison with both the MD-III 2.8/24mm as well as the MD-I 2.8/24mm, and when it comes to resolution & contrast it certainly is as good as the Minolta MD-III (which is better than the earlier MC-X/MD-I computation).

Haven't checked distortion yet, and neither its close range performance.

S


PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2023 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Two Tamrons, also from the wastebin of a local photo store:


The Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300mm is a well known tele zoom from the early 1980s. It's a pretty good performer, especially when you consider its 5x zoom range. That said the Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm "big beercan" (the early large full-metal zoom) is somehow better (if you really want a vintage zoom in this range).

The other lens is a pretty old Auto Tamron 3.5/200mm. It's a small, lightweight and pretty fast 200mm lens from 1976.
It is soft wide open, has simply "unsharp" corners at f3.5 and needs to be stopped down to f8 for decent (not good!) image quality (24 MP FF). A "low performer", maybe OK for low contrast portraits though - but MFD is 2.5m, not exactly sufficient for real portraiture ...

S


The older Adaptall lenses of that vintage rarely have good focus grip rubber on them. Your 200mm appears to be in fairly good condition.

Interesting SP zoom. I generally try to avoid extreme focal length ranges of that magnitude, which is entirely based on the performance of cheaper 3rd party lenses. That being said, the nikkor 50-300 seems to have generally favorable reviews. Will watch for test images from your long zoom SP.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Sigma Super Wide II 2-8/24mm (MF version, Minolta MD mount).

As others have remarked earler, the lens performs very well. At infinity detail resolution it is comparable to well known lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/24mm, the Minolta MD-III 2.8/24mm or the AiS Nikkor 2.8/24mm. It's clearly better than e. g. the older Minolta MC-X/MD-I 2.8/24mm or the Konica AR 2.8/24mm (first computation). Since the Sigma has no floating elements, I suspect it to have an inferior performance al close distances (Canon nFD, Minolta MC/MD and Nikkor AiS all have floating elements).


I will have to check about floating elements, I think you are right.

If that's the case then I should be able to put together a comparison between the I and the II.

Also - does your Tamron 60-300 have a 'clunking' sound when moved backwards and forwards along the optical axis?

I also find these exhibit a fair bit of CA at the short end. But some of same range also have.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

The older Adaptall lenses of that vintage rarely have good focus grip rubber on them. Your 200mm appears to be in fairly good condition.


Yes, the Adaptall-(1) series has that soft rubbery material while AD2 grips are some sort of plastics?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:

The older Adaptall lenses of that vintage rarely have good focus grip rubber on them. Your 200mm appears to be in fairly good condition.


Yes, the Adaptall-(1) series has that soft rubbery material while AD2 grips are some sort of plastics?
AD2 grips stay firm but they usually have some white residue on them.

adapt-a-matic rubber is even worse, but the early ribbed metal grips are great.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

The older Adaptall lenses of that vintage rarely have good focus grip rubber on them. Your 200mm appears to be in fairly good condition.

Yes, it certainly is Wink.

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Interesting SP zoom. I generally try to avoid extreme focal length ranges of that magnitude, which is entirely based on the performance of cheaper 3rd party lenses. That being said, the nikkor 50-300 seems to have generally favorable reviews. Will watch for test images from your long zoom SP.

-D.S.

I remember that there was quite a lot of publicity going on when the Tamron SP 60-300 hit the market. Contemporary tests were pretty favourable, and the huge 5x zoom range certainly was selling well. earlier on I have made a quite extensive 300mm test, and the Tamron zoom was as good as the average 300mm prime from Canon / Minolta / Nikon (and MUCH better than some of the 3rd party 4/300mm or 4.5/300mm lenses).

eggplant wrote:

If that's the case then I should be able to put together a comparison between the I and the II.

That would be interesting as I have never seen an Sigma 2.8/24mm I here in Switzerland.

eggplant wrote:
Also - does your Tamron 60-300 have a 'clunking' sound when moved backwards and forwards along the optical axis?

No. Really smooth zooming without any sound Wink !

D1N0 wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:

The older Adaptall lenses of that vintage rarely have good focus grip rubber on them. Your 200mm appears to be in fairly good condition.


Yes, the Adaptall-(1) series has that soft rubbery material while AD2 grips are some sort of plastics?
AD2 grips stay firm but they usually have some white residue on them.


If there's not too much of the white residue, one can clean it e. g. using a toothbrush. This usually works well for the small rubber pyramids used in focusing grips. If you have a flat smooth surface (e. g. with the grips of the Minolta 7000 / 9000 SLRs), then a "rubber refreshing" fluid containing plasticizers works really well. Google "rubber care" or "plastics refreher"... but be aware that the plasticizer compounds are nasty stuff; they inhibit the proper function of the (male) endocrine system not only with fish, but also humans ("endocrine disruptors"). They are easily resorbed via the skin!

In the mean time I've been cleaning the Tamron SP 60-200mm (just with a toothbrush, no plasticizers), and now it looks like new Wink



I may make a comparison between a few zooms such as the Tamron SP 60-300mm, Tokina 100-300mm, the Minolta MD 100-300mm and 70-300mm, the Canon 100-300mm L and the Minolta AF 75-300mm I "big beercan". There will be visible differences, I promise!

S


PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My new lens is a Samyang 10mm F4 for Sony A-mount. Totally manual rectalineair.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:
My new lens is a Samyang 10mm F4 for Sony A-mount. Totally manual rectalineair.


A qick websearch didn't get any results for a "Samyang 10mm f4". Which lens are you talking about?
I got results for a (APS-C) Samyang 2.8/10mm and a (mirrorless only) Laowa 4/10mm ...

S


PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:

If you have a good copy you will like this one.


Yeah - I did a quick'n'dirty side-by-side comparison with both the MD-III 2.8/24mm as well as the MD-I 2.8/24mm, and when it comes to resolution & contrast it certainly is as good as the Minolta MD-III (which is better than the earlier MC-X/MD-I computation).

Haven't checked distortion yet, and neither its close range performance.

S


If my copies are good the MD X is a slightly better performer than the MD I. About 5,6 the MC X is not bad on most of the frame with average contrast but nice resolution and contrast can be boosted in post. The MDI has fantastic performance in the centre, perhaps better than the Sigma but is a disaster passed the line of thirds. I really wonder if my copy is fine.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

If my copies are good the MD X is a slightly better performer than the MD I. About 5,6 the MC X is not bad on most of the frame with average contrast but nice resolution and contrast can be boosted in post.


THere are in fact two different MC-X 2.8/24mm lenses. The first one was introduced in 1973 and it weighs a hefty 395g (lots of brass and an extremely smooth focusing in spite of floarting elements). The second one (which looks the same from the outside) is much lighter ate 275g. While both lenses have the same lens section published, their performance is slightly different indicating an "adapted computation". This assumption is supported by the fact that the first version clearly has much warmer colors (different glass).

lumens pixel wrote:
The MDI has fantastic performance in the centre, perhaps better than the Sigma but is a disaster passed the line of thirds. I really wonder if my copy is fine.

Disaster? My samples (larger MD-I as well as smaller MD-II, both with the same optical computation) certainly aren't a disaster! Maybe your lens has been disassembled and the floating focusing mechanism was re-assembled faultly? That would lead to strong field curvature ... and explain your observations.



Above: Minolta MC-X 2.8/24mm (395g, [9/7]), MC-X 2.8/24mm (275g, [9/7]), MD-I 2.8/24mm (275g, [9/7]), MD-II 2.8/24mm (215g, [9/7]), and MD-III 2.8/24mm (200g, [8/8])

S


EDIT: Detailed information by RokkorDoctor about the floating focusing mechanism of the 24mm Rokkors here in this thread:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1558444.html#1558444


PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:

If my copies are good the MD X is a slightly better performer than the MD I. About 5,6 the MC X is not bad on most of the frame with average contrast but nice resolution and contrast can be boosted in post.


THere are in fact two different MC-X 2.8/24mm lenses. The first one was introduced in 1973 and it weighs a hefty 395g (lots of brass and an extremely smooth focusing in spite of floarting elements). The second one (which looks the same from the outside) is much lighter ate 275g. While both lenses have the same lens section published, their performance is slightly different indicating an "adapted computation". This assumption is supported by the fact that the first version clearly has much warmer colors (different glass).

lumens pixel wrote:
The MDI has fantastic performance in the centre, perhaps better than the Sigma but is a disaster passed the line of thirds. I really wonder if my copy is fine.

Disaster? My samples (larger MD-I as well as smaller MD-II, both with the same optical computation) certainly aren't a disaster! Maybe your lens has been disassembled and the floating focusing mechanism was re-assembled faultly? That would lead to strong field curvature ... and explain your observations.



Above: Minolta MC-X 2.8/24mm (395g, [9/7]), MC-X 2.8/24mm (275g, [9/7]), MD-I 2.8/24mm (275g, [9/7]), MD-II 2.8/24mm (215g, [9/7]), and MD-III 2.8/24mm (200g, [8/8])

S


EDIT: Detailed information by RokkorDoctor about the floating focusing mechanism of the 24mm Rokkors here in this thread:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1558444.html#1558444


I have the early MC X and the MD II, not the MD I, as per your picture, which helps me clarify my statement. Yes, although looking mint new my copy might have been disassembled. But there is no marks on the screws... I have no clue.

Edit: You made me remember that my MDII was better after shimming the adapter but I need to test again that lens to have a sounder opinion about it.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
A qick websearch didn't get any results for a "Samyang 10mm f4". Which lens are you talking about?
I got results for a (APS-C) Samyang 2.8/10mm and a (mirrorless only) Laowa 4/10mm ...


Sorry, my mistake. It is a Samyang 10mm F 3.1. Rather big thing for APS-C DSLR (Sony/Minolta A-mount).
Brought a bit late on the market, when mirrorless was taking over, so not sold in large quantities.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]Sigma Super Wide II 2-8/24mm (MF version, Minolta MD mount).




That lens is supposed to be among the best of the time. The german mag Colorphoto did a test comparison of 6 or 8 24mm (forgot) and it beat all the others. The cover of the issue went "Sigma schlägt Leica!" I still wish I could find one in AIS mount.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Taking it's time...


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


I may make a comparison between a few zooms such as the Tamron SP 60-300mm, Tokina 100-300mm, the Minolta MD 100-300mm and 70-300mm, the Canon 100-300mm L and the Minolta AF 75-300mm I "big beercan". There will be visible differences, I promise!

S


For who is interested. This is going for auction tonight. https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/75707069-minolta-af-75-300-4-5-5-6-big-beer-can (not mine)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Sigma Super Wide II 2-8/24mm (MF version, Minolta MD mount).
...
That lens is supposed to be among the best of the time. The german mag Colorphoto did a test comparison of 6 or 8 24mm (forgot) and it beat all the others. The cover of the issue went "Sigma schlägt Leica!" I still wish I could find one in AIS mount.


Interesting information, and absolutely believable, since the Leica R 2.8/24mm back then basically was the first computation of the Minolta MC/MD 2.8/24mm. As I have written before, at infinity the Sigma 2.8/24mm Super Wide II certainly is better than the first computation of the Minolta 2.8/24mm ...

If I locally should see a Nikkor-mount Sigma 2.8/24mm Super Wide II I'll inform you. I assume they would be around CHF/USD 20.-- to 40.-- (unless I'd find one in a wastebin ...)

S


PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks a lot Stephan. That would be great. I do have contacts in CH and France... 😉👍
Or come to visit me in Namibia... The land of photographic opportunities 😄


PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My batch from Japan finally came:

Bokina Tokina
Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm 1:2.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr

Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm 1:2.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr

SMC Pentax 85-210mm 1:3.5 zoom
SMC Pentaz Zoom 85-210mm 1:3.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr

SMC Pentaz Zoom 85-210mm 1:3.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr

Strange m42 Mamiya-Sekor E 35mm 1:2.8
Mamiya-Sekor E 35mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr

Mamiya-Sekor E 35mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr

Mamiya-Sekor E 35mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice catch D1NO!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 281, 282, 283 ... 309, 310, 311  Next
Page 282 of 311