Just an update, I posted about 10 more tests, mostly all from MP. A bunch of Oly, some Canon EF and FD, Vivitar Series 1 and Leica, with a couple Pentaxes too.

More to come.

-Ed

Thanks for posting those, Ed. Any review/test on the Noct-Nikkor, by any chance?

BTW, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S is a great lens alright but the corner performance suffers on a FF camera until about f/2.8 or so. It also has a close-range-correction; you can take impressive closeup images with that lens. In that case, who cares about the corners.

Ageojo -

I haven't gotten one of the Noct yet, that I can recall but I will keep looking. I have seen mention of it in places but no full reviews/tests yet that I have come across.

Thanks for the info on the Nikon 35 1.4, I'll keep an eye out for one of those. The floating-element design is a nice thing indeed!

-Ed

AGeoJO wrote:

BTW, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S is a great lens alright but the corner performance suffers on a FF camera until about f/2.8 or so.

Sounds perfect to me. There's something I like about the corner softness and vignetting of some lenses wide open. 35/1.4 seems like a lens that would work well this way.

I've been thinking that maybe this lens is another option to consider along with a 35 T/S.

I posted 6 more of these just now, including:

Rokkor 21 f2.8, 85 1.7, 50 1.4 MC, 100 f2.5, et al

Oly 24 f2.8 (which pretty much spanks all the other 24s I have seen in tests so far), some other Olys too

Canon FD 300 f4 and 300 f4L (Paul, a nod to you ;-)

And some Nikon stuff too. Plus 3 Soligor C/D lenses.

Yet still more to come...

-Ed

Ed Sawyer wrote:

Oly 24 f2.8 (which pretty much spanks all the other 24s I have seen in tests so far), some other Olys too

-Ed


The Oly 24 2.8 is the one alt lens I have found to be irreplaceable since moving to the Sony A mount from the EOS mount. It was my most used lens. That test confirms just how good this lens really is.

Indeed it does fare quite well in the tests, it seemed better than the nikon and pentax in the tests I posted so far.

I have a 24/2 but not the 2.8 yet, the 2 didn't do quite as well though still quite respectable, and perhaps in some ways better (faster, floating design, etc.). I'll post the test of the 24/2 soon too.

-Ed

Ed,

Could you please search for the Minolta Rokkor 24/2.8 and 28/2.0? This is competition for the Olys and others, and another option for the apparent normal lens on a crop body. These 2 have the floating element design, and to complicate the story, the 28 changed optical design 2 times and the 24/2.8 changed optical design 3 times in their lives, not to mention Leica using the 24mm design in their own 24mm R lens.

Jim, the 24 2.8 Rokkor is up there:

http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/MP_Oly_35f2_50f35macro_Nikon_15f35_Rokkor_24f28_50f14.pdf

I wiill look for the 28 2.0, I think I have that one somewhere. Definitely good competition for the Oly's. I have a Vivitar series 1 28 1.9 that I want to find results for too, that's a pretty nice lens.

interesting to know they changed the design 2 or 3 times on those! Does that correspond with MC /MD or something that can be discovered from looking at the lens? Or is it more of a hidden change... ?

-Ed

Ed Sawyer wrote:
interesting to know they changed the design 2 or 3 times on those! Does that correspond with MC /MD or something that can be discovered from looking at the lens? Or is it more of a hidden change... ?
-Ed

In both cases, there was a change (different elements/groups) when Minolta went to the "plain" Minolta lenses, that were smaller in size. "plain" because they dropped the brand name Rokkor. This was around 1980 and apparently was a move to reduce costs. However, the reviews that exists claim the late "plain" minolta lenses to be better.

In the 24/2.8, there was an early lens formula, making 3 versions for that lens.

Alf Beharie wrote:
mawz wrote:

Note the old Nikon 200/2 is not the same as the VR optically. It's the VR that's the more legendary of the two.


Actually I'd say the only Nikon 200mm lens that truely deserves to be called legendary is the Micro Nikkor 200mm f4 IF AI-S...Best macro lens I've ever come across.


Try a 200/2 VR sometime. It's stellar. I'd never own one but I'm glad I've been able to try it.

cogitech wrote:
AGeoJO wrote:

BTW, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S is a great lens alright but the corner performance suffers on a FF camera until about f/2.8 or so.

Sounds perfect to me. There's something I like about the corner softness and vignetting of some lenses wide open. 35/1.4 seems like a lens that would work well this way.

I've been thinking that maybe this lens is another option to consider along with a 35 T/S.

The 35/1.4 is one I'm definitely liking. It's got enough centre sharpness at f1.4 to satisfy and it's sharper across the frame at f2.8 than my 35/2 was. I'll still use my 40/2 instead for when I need full-frame sharpness but the 35/1.4 has a very nice look wide open on FF.

Gonna have to get me a D700 now that I've got the 35/1.4 and my new Tamron SP 17 Adaptall.

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Yet still more to come...


Ed, Your effort and service here is great and I highly appreciate it. I would like to thank you for all this and I'm also looking forward to more to come.

Glad to help out. I posted 6 or 8 more today. Still yet more to come, some good stuff. a few interesting articles to post too, re: lens design, et al.

-Ed

Thands Ed,
this is priceless
I can have a better estimate now on what aperture to start with in the centre and how much more to stop down for good borders if it's needed.
Excellent!
Georg

Georg - glad you find it useful. I have another half dozen or so to post today if I can get them finished.

Indeed there's some good info to be gleaned from these tests, even if they are a bit dated and certainly not the last word on how good or bad a lens is.

-Ed

Thanks Ed for all the good reviews.

I find it interesting that a number of the tests mention purple fringing. There have been many debates if this is from the sensor or the lens. Well, since all these tests were done in the film era, it adds some info to the debate.

Rodney

I think fringing/CA existed before, but it's exacerbated by the advent of sensors, which end up channeling the light more vs. film. (angle of acceptance). So, if there's an issue with fringing/CA, it's probably worse on digital than film, would be my guess. (generally speaking)

Just an update, I posted 9 more PDFs today, covering stuff like the wide Pentaxes (18/f3.5, 28, 24, etc), a couple of 500 f/8 mirror lenses (canon FD, Minolta), Vivitar series 1 28/f1.9, Vivitar 24/f2, 28/f2, and several others I can't recall right now.

more to come soon, incl. a super-speed lens comparison test (5 fast 50-ish lenses) and the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 test.

-Ed

Thanks Ed for doing this.


Ed Sawyer wrote:
I think fringing/CA existed before, but it's exacerbated by the advent of sensors, which end up channeling the light more vs. film. (angle of acceptance). So, if there's an issue with fringing/CA, it's probably worse on digital than film, would be my guess. (generally speaking)

Which is why all this leads inevitably to shooting only Leica APO.