Minolta 50s and the A7

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
rsf3127
Forum MemberPosts: 59Gear list
Like?
Re: wasn't impressed
In reply to forpetessake, 6 months ago

I can bet afirm that your comparison is flawed. The Rokkor shot has movement and is out of focus.

I have compared mine to various modern 50mm lenses and the only disadvantage that it has is CA for the ancient coatings.

Sharpness is on par or is superior to various modern lenses.

-- hide signature --

Gabriel

 rsf3127's gear list:rsf3127's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A35 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD (IF) Macro +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Murx
Regular MemberPosts: 168
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to kuuan, 6 months ago

kuuan wrote:

kenetik wrote:

Yeah, in the $20 test, the focus looks off on the second bill. I like yours better anyway, Franklin beats Hamilton anyday :). Seriously, legacy glass represent!

sure we legacy lens shooters got more Franklins left in our bocket...

well, in theory they are highly addictive and one tends to buy many more than needed. 'Needed'? Who 'needs' lenses? I have them for enjoyment, and as you showed in your great report about legacy Minolta normal lenses each one has it's own charm and gives it's own joys. I certainly prefer 10 legacy lenses for the price of one new AF

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

thats the spirit !

thx for the minolta post.

very inspiring. i thought i have too many 50s (5) but - ..

better 10 cute mf 50s than one 'sharp across the frame at 1.8' 50.

what a sillY idea btw. - sharp in corners @ 1.8 - who needs that ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Murx
Regular MemberPosts: 168
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to forpetessake, 6 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

I also tried some of them on A7 and thought they were better on FF, still too soft wide open, bad corners, too severe halation and CA -- they were actually worse on FF than SEL 50/1.8 on a NEX.

because I don't have the Sony I can't and won't argue if the Sony is better than legacy 50mm lenses, but one thing I can say for certain: your sample shown taken with the Rokkor is not representative of a legacy 50mm at all!

It either had been taken with a faulty lens or simply had been very badly taken. None of my 40+ legacy normal lenses would look that bad @f2. Unfortunately I don't have the Rokkor-X 1.4/50, which I also have, with my right now, but e.g. a 50% crop of a fast and dirty take I just did with a S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50 @f2 on NEX5N:

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

Sorry to disappoint you, but all your guesses are wrong. Show some valid tests if you want to prove any of your statements. And for now, here are some more tests with the old manual lenses. They are not surprisingly tested very much alike with few exceptions, and quite behind the Sony's lenses, which actually aren't the best of the breed either.

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,533
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to Murx, 6 months ago

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

I also tried some of them on A7 and thought they were better on FF, still too soft wide open, bad corners, too severe halation and CA -- they were actually worse on FF than SEL 50/1.8 on a NEX.

because I don't have the Sony I can't and won't argue if the Sony is better than legacy 50mm lenses, but one thing I can say for certain: your sample shown taken with the Rokkor is not representative of a legacy 50mm at all!

It either had been taken with a faulty lens or simply had been very badly taken. None of my 40+ legacy normal lenses would look that bad @f2. Unfortunately I don't have the Rokkor-X 1.4/50, which I also have, with my right now, but e.g. a 50% crop of a fast and dirty take I just did with a S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50 @f2 on NEX5N:

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

Sorry to disappoint you, but all your guesses are wrong. Show some valid tests if you want to prove any of your statements. And for now, here are some more tests with the old manual lenses. They are not surprisingly tested very much alike with few exceptions, and quite behind the Sony's lenses, which actually aren't the best of the breed either.

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good). Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,533
Like?
Re: wasn't impressed
In reply to rsf3127, 6 months ago

rsf3127 wrote:

I can bet afirm that your comparison is flawed. The Rokkor shot has movement and is out of focus.

You lost your bet, now where is my money?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Murx
Regular MemberPosts: 168
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to forpetessake, 6 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good). Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

ah - but thats just coatings and even more critically: "wide open" == 1.8 @ 50 these days for a 1k$ lens. chickens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sleepdance
New MemberPosts: 23Gear list
Like?
Re: Minolta 50s and the A7
In reply to kenetik, 6 months ago

Those are really sexy pictures of the A7/50 combos. Thanks for posting them! I have a 50mmish addition as well, which is my personal NEX sweet spot.

Here's what I have in my collection:
35mm W.Minolta Rokkor-X HG 2.8 ø55mm: slower than the 50s, but its sharpness really surprised me, and it's as close as you can get to a 50mm APS-C focal length (52.5mm).
45mm MD Rokkor-X 2.0 ø49mm: great choice for a small/light prime
50mm MC Rokkor-X PF 2.0 ø55: superb considering how cheap you can pick them up for, and how high-end it feels to use. This is the lens that got me in to Minolta 50's, and I still love it.
50mm MC Rokkor-PG 1.4 ø55: one of my all-time favorites.
50mm MD 2.0 ø49: the 45 and 50 f2 keep the camera much more mobile than the faster primes.
50mm MD Rokkor-X 1.7 ø49mm: better coatings that the 1.4, but its first step is from 1.4 to 2.8.
58mm MC Rokkor-PF 1.4 ø55mm: a beast. It's so heavy but just perfect with an NEX.

50mm Canon FD 1.4 ø52mm (off topic, I know): I mention this because it can be found for the price of the Minolta 1.4, but it has the benefit of 1/3 stop adjustments and goes to f22. It feels much cheaper than the 1.4 PG, but shoots well and the extra control is welcomed.

I'll try to keep better notes on these and might update this post in the future.

 Sleepdance's gear list:Sleepdance's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha NEX-6 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kuuan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,403Gear list
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kenetik, 6 months ago

kenetik wrote:

Kerpal wrote:

And it's a wonderful lens. My only gripe is that it goes from f1.2 to f2 with no stops in between...

Yes, the fact it jumps so far on the aperture ring is something I have always found odd.

could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

 kuuan's gear list:kuuan's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Pentax *ist DS Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sleepdance
New MemberPosts: 23Gear list
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kuuan, 6 months ago
could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

Two of my Minolta primes came "declicked", which was a problem. Without the bearing, there is no force to keep the aperture wide open without physically holding the dial. Once you release the dial, the aperture slides down a stop from the force of the spring inside. I used bearing from the tip of a ballpoint pen to fix mine.

 Sleepdance's gear list:Sleepdance's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha NEX-6 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kuuan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,403Gear list
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to Sleepdance, 5 months ago

Sleepdance wrote:

could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

Two of my Minolta primes came "declicked", which was a problem. Without the bearing, there is no force to keep the aperture wide open without physically holding the dial. Once you release the dial, the aperture slides down a stop from the force of the spring inside. I used bearing from the tip of a ballpoint pen to fix mine.

oh, thank you very much for pointing that out!!

I had de-clicked a few lenses of mine but non had been a Minolta and I had not encountered this problem. Many people do this to use lenses for video.

( I really don't want to be hard on that one poster, but I just can't get over Minolta, Konica and Olympus being called 'third tier manufacturers'.. )

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

 kuuan's gear list:kuuan's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Pentax *ist DS Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,533
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to Murx, 5 months ago

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good). Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

ah - but thats just coatings and even more critically: "wide open" == 1.8 @ 50 these days for a 1k$ lens. chickens.

Cheapskate, as it's well known, pays twice There is nothing more expensive than a cheap stuff. IMHO a $1G for a high quality lens is a better deal than any old Minoltas/Konicas/Canons for $50. The latter is a waste of money. You'll still end up buying the good stuff, otherwise why even paying $1700 for the body if you are limited by a poor quality lens. And putting $1G in perspective, it's what a family spends on a bottled water per year, or just one day of vacation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kenetik
Regular MemberPosts: 176
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kuuan, 5 months ago

kuuan wrote:

Sleepdance wrote:

could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

Two of my Minolta primes came "declicked", which was a problem. Without the bearing, there is no force to keep the aperture wide open without physically holding the dial. Once you release the dial, the aperture slides down a stop from the force of the spring inside. I used bearing from the tip of a ballpoint pen to fix mine.

oh, thank you very much for pointing that out!!

I had de-clicked a few lenses of mine but non had been a Minolta and I had not encountered this problem. Many people do this to use lenses for video.

( I really don't want to be hard on that one poster, but I just can't get over Minolta, Konica and Olympus being called 'third tier manufacturers'.. )

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

The 58 1.2 is the same, 1.2 straight to f2.  There isn't really any room to move the thing between stops, the throw is really small.

I wouldn't worry about the comments made earlier, the guy was obviously trolling.  BTW - I browsed some after your lens comparisons and your Flickr feed is great Kuuan.  You've shot with so many lenses.  The pics of those cats (sisters I think it was called) were amazing.  The animals themselves are striking and the vibrance of the photos amazing. What lens did you use for that one?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kenetik
Regular MemberPosts: 176
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to forpetessake, 5 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good). Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

ah - but thats just coatings and even more critically: "wide open" == 1.8 @ 50 these days for a 1k$ lens. chickens.

Cheapskate, as it's well known, pays twice There is nothing more expensive than a cheap stuff. IMHO a $1G for a high quality lens is a better deal than any old Minoltas/Konicas/Canons for $50. The latter is a waste of money. You'll still end up buying the good stuff, otherwise why even paying $1700 for the body if you are limited by a poor quality lens. And putting $1G in perspective, it's what a family spends on a bottled water per year, or just one day of vacation.

With all of the lens tests you performed, you seem to have spent an enormous amount of time and money to prove this to yourself. Why stop at the 1k Zeiss?  If I refuse my children water for 3 years and skip a few days of vacation, I could get a Zeiss Otis.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kuuan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,403Gear list
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kenetik, 5 months ago

kenetik wrote:

kuuan wrote:

Sleepdance wrote:

could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

Two of my Minolta primes came "declicked", which was a problem. Without the bearing, there is no force to keep the aperture wide open without physically holding the dial. Once you release the dial, the aperture slides down a stop from the force of the spring inside. I used bearing from the tip of a ballpoint pen to fix mine.

oh, thank you very much for pointing that out!!

I had de-clicked a few lenses of mine but non had been a Minolta and I had not encountered this problem. Many people do this to use lenses for video.

( I really don't want to be hard on that one poster, but I just can't get over Minolta, Konica and Olympus being called 'third tier manufacturers'.. )

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

The 58 1.2 is the same, 1.2 straight to f2. There isn't really any room to move the thing between stops, the throw is really small.

I wouldn't worry about the comments made earlier, the guy was obviously trolling. BTW - I browsed some after your lens comparisons and your Flickr feed is great Kuuan. You've shot with so many lenses. The pics of those cats (sisters I think it was called) were amazing. The animals themselves are striking and the vibrance of the photos amazing. What lens did you use for that one?

hm..sounds difficult to get it set between f1.2 and f2 then

thank you for the heads up! I really dislike it when talking gear is taken personal and really try to avoid that..

oh, thank you! It always makes me very happy if somebody looks at photos of mine, enjoys that and gets something out of it, and specially if s/he tells me so

the cat pics had been taken with a Olympus Pen-F Zuiko 1.8/38 halfframe lens, a stunning lens! However I had not used my NEX5N but Ricoh GXR M module for which I had adapted this lens. I had shown this adaptation ( the only one of a Pen-F lens to Leica M mount I know of having been done ) at the Ricoh forum here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3636252

cheers, kuuan

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

 kuuan's gear list:kuuan's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Pentax *ist DS Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kenetik
Regular MemberPosts: 176
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kuuan, 5 months ago

kuuan wrote:

kenetik wrote:

kuuan wrote:

Sleepdance wrote:

could one not also try to set aperture between f1.4 and f2? specially is the throw is a bit longer than between other stops is should be possible.

not for the fainthearted or someone without any experience taking apart lenses, but de-clicking a lens, removing that small ball from the aperture mechanism often is quite easy. Looking at photos of the 1.2/50 it looks as if first unscrewing the mount and then the next ring of the body already might make fall out the ball, to not loose it better to do that on top of a tray

Two of my Minolta primes came "declicked", which was a problem. Without the bearing, there is no force to keep the aperture wide open without physically holding the dial. Once you release the dial, the aperture slides down a stop from the force of the spring inside. I used bearing from the tip of a ballpoint pen to fix mine.

oh, thank you very much for pointing that out!!

I had de-clicked a few lenses of mine but non had been a Minolta and I had not encountered this problem. Many people do this to use lenses for video.

( I really don't want to be hard on that one poster, but I just can't get over Minolta, Konica and Olympus being called 'third tier manufacturers'.. )

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

The 58 1.2 is the same, 1.2 straight to f2. There isn't really any room to move the thing between stops, the throw is really small.

I wouldn't worry about the comments made earlier, the guy was obviously trolling. BTW - I browsed some after your lens comparisons and your Flickr feed is great Kuuan. You've shot with so many lenses. The pics of those cats (sisters I think it was called) were amazing. The animals themselves are striking and the vibrance of the photos amazing. What lens did you use for that one?

hm..sounds difficult to get it set between f1.2 and f2 then

thank you for the heads up! I really dislike it when talking gear is taken personal and really try to avoid that..

oh, thank you! It always makes me very happy if somebody looks at photos of mine, enjoys that and gets something out of it, and specially if s/he tells me so

the cat pics had been taken with a Olympus Pen-F Zuiko 1.8/38 halfframe lens, a stunning lens! However I had not used my NEX5N but Ricoh GXR M module for which I had adapted this lens. I had shown this adaptation ( the only one of a Pen-F lens to Leica M mount I know of having been done ) at the Ricoh forum here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3636252

cheers, kuuan

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

That lens conversion was totally worth it, and the resulting pics had an amazing tonality.  Not bad for a legacy lens from a third tier manufacturer :).  I think the thread said you use it adapted to your NEX as well.  How does it do?

Was cool to see your pics.  Also loved the WA shot of those tall buildings in Kuala Lampur.  Cheers.

Ken

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kuuan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,403Gear list
Like?
Re: I have the 50 1.2....
In reply to kenetik, 5 months ago

kenetik wrote:

kuuan wrote:

the cat pics had been taken with a Olympus Pen-F Zuiko 1.8/38 halfframe lens, a stunning lens! However I had not used my NEX5N but Ricoh GXR M module for which I had adapted this lens. I had shown this adaptation ( the only one of a Pen-F lens to Leica M mount I know of having been done ) at the Ricoh forum here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3636252

cheers, kuuan

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

That lens conversion was totally worth it, and the resulting pics had an amazing tonality. Not bad for a legacy lens from a third tier manufacturer :). I think the thread said you use it adapted to your NEX as well. How does it do?

Was cool to see your pics. Also loved the WA shot of those tall buildings in Kuala Lampur. Cheers.

Ken

thank you Ken. I didn't want to say so first, on the Sony forum ;), but I believe that the camera used also played it's role. Generally I prefer colors and tonality of the GXR M over those produced by my NEX5N and prefer using the Ricoh. That although the Sony has some undisputed advantages, it's faster, has a more modern, higher res. and better high ISO, generally less noisy sensor and a higher res. EVF.

I am not sure which WA pics you are referring to, but if they had been taken with the Super-Wide Heliar 4.5/15 chances are that I also had used the Ricoh, no corner issues on the GXR M at all, though I should say that in this respect the 5N does pretty well too.

as you may know adapters for Pen-F lenses to E mount are readily available for little money. However I had to find out that the mounts of Pen-F are not consistent and that therefore not every adapter will work for every Pen-F lens. I had writen on this here in a thread at mflenses.com ( that had started out talking about color of lens coating ) and there was a follow up trying to classify mounts of Pen-F lenses

most normal to tele Pen-F lenses even cover FF, see the summary on how they do on A7r in the last post in this thread

Pen-F lenses to great on NEX, the later half in my set with photos taken with the 1.8/38 was taken on the NEX5N, and all photos taken with the Pen-F Zuiko 1.4/40 seen in it's dedicated set, more than with the 1.8/38, have been taken with the 5N, the first few seen at ISO 6400

andreas

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

 kuuan's gear list:kuuan's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Pentax *ist DS Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ProfHankD
Senior MemberPosts: 1,945Gear list
Like?
No point in calling a "winner"
In reply to forpetessake, 5 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good).

No winner can be declared unless you specify judging guidelines.

Your recollection about general superiority of Canon and Nikon lenses doesn't match my memory, nor test results. Minolta in particular was one of the very few who made their own glass, and you might recall that they also made lenses with/for Leica -- which means they were actually what I gather you'd call a "first tier" lens manufacturer (assuming you view Canon and Nikon as "second tier").

I don't think such "tier" classifications are meaningful beyond influencing the price tag. In general, different manufacturers differed more in terms of their priorities for various metrics than in terms of overall IQ or build quality: different companies optimized for different attributes. For example, Minolta favored color matching and bokeh wide open, whereas Canon favored high microcontrast and stopped-down performance.

Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

Like I've said many times, Canon in particular didn't really optimize most of their fast lenses to be used wide open -- which makes sense in that fast apertures were largely about having a brighter focus screen while composing. The high microcontrast does help MTF50 resolution and focus, but resolution of many of their peers is actually higher at lower contrast levels (usually below MTF30). Canon seems to have avoided contrast-reducing veiling flare, but often traded it for more annoying bright patterns over portions of the frame. For example, my FDn 35mm f/2 is an excellent lens, but the poster child for problematic flare patterns.

Across all brands, old lenses often have undercorrected SA (it's not halation, and it's often deliberate to improve bokeh) and CA is often worse due to lack of cheap aspherics. Barely-visible defects due to age, such as haze and radioactive yellowing, also can impair IQ in ways somewhat similar to SA. There also are issues due to the different spectral sensitivity and high reflectance of sensor vs. film. The problems with modern glass tend to be rooted in poor alignment (due to autofocus constraints and cost-reducing manufacturing practices), surface imperfections in cheap aspherics, and use of way more elements (coatings may be better, but they have to be a lot better to work as well with more surfaces).

In summary, no lens, modern or old, cheap or expensive, beats all other lenses in every metric. Even lenses sold by Vivitar and Spiratone can be great by some metrics. It comes down to personal preference and matching lens characteristics to the shooting circumstances.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot A640 Canon PowerShot A720 IS Canon PowerShot S70 Canon PowerShot G1 Canon PowerShot G5 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kuuan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,403Gear list
Like?
Re: No point in calling a "winner"
In reply to ProfHankD, 5 months ago

ProfHankD wrote:

...

In summary, no lens, modern or old, cheap or expensive, beats all other lenses in every metric. Even lenses sold by Vivitar and Spiratone can be great by some metrics. It comes down to personal preference and matching lens characteristics to the shooting circumstances.

right!

I remember when in this forum people had been falling over themselves declaring the nFD to be 'the best' legacy 1.4/50. It sure is a good lens and they loved it for good reasons, possibly the first fast 50 for some. They made a good choice too, the Canon lenses sold cheaply. But imo in declaring it, or any lens, to be the very best they actually were outing themselves as novices, just as anyone does who declares certain branded lenses to be 'better' then the rest

-- hide signature --

photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Ricoh GXR M, Sony NEX5N, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/

 kuuan's gear list:kuuan's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Pentax *ist DS Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Murx
Regular MemberPosts: 168
Like?
Re: your photos sure isn't impressing :)
In reply to forpetessake, 5 months ago

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Murx wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

kuuan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

I've had a dozen of different old ~50mm lenses, including several Minoltas. They are cheap and widely available, so it doesn't take much to build a big collection. Some samples are here . I got rid of most of them, still have Minolta 50/1.7 and 45/2 -- they are too cheap to bother selling them, and keeping Canon FD 50/1.4 for sentimental value, and it's probably the best of any other old 50mm lens. Still, the Sony 50/1.8 was noticeably better than any of those. Here is a comparison with Rokkor 50/1.4

note : the best lens in your test in terms of sharpness @ its respective sweetspot is not the sel but the fd 28/2.0 ...

I'm not sure I can declare a winner here, but in my memory the Canon FD and Nikon lenses were noticeably better than the lenses from the third tier manufacturers like Minolta, Konica, Olympus (with the exception of some Olympus Pen-F, which were very good). Most of FD lenses I tried when stopped down sowed great resolution and contrast. Wide open though they showed worse halation, flare, and CA than the modern glass.

ah - but thats just coatings and even more critically: "wide open" == 1.8 @ 50 these days for a 1k$ lens. chickens.

Cheapskate, as it's well known, pays twice There is nothing more expensive than a cheap stuff. IMHO a $1G for a high quality lens is a better deal than any old Minoltas/Konicas/Canons for $50. The latter is a waste of money. You'll still end up buying the good stuff, otherwise why even paying $1700 for the body if you are limited by a poor quality lens. And putting $1G in perspective, it's what a family spends on a bottled water per year, or just one day of vacation.

well not ... quite - i have e.g these two old minoltas :

- md 35-70 / 3.5 macro - 19 Euro

- md 35 / 2.8 last version - 20 Euro

in the 35-ish range i own yet another cheap 30 mm :sigma 2.8.

is the latter better ? i don't think so

for some silly reasons i prefer the minoltas if i go out with a 30-ish fl.

or an equally good (but not better) c/y 28/2.8

but then again my family drinks water from the tap, so ymmv.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Astrophotographer 10
Senior MemberPosts: 4,634Gear list
Like?
Re: Minolta 50s and the A7
In reply to Sleepdance, 5 months ago

I just received a 50mm MD 1.2 today. I was able to set it between F1.2 and F2. Not easy as mentioned but it will do it with care.

Greg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads