p.2 #1 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Canon nFD 35 f2.8
Already very good edge to edge sharpness at f4. Really excellent from f5.6 onwards. Actually very close to my C/Y D28 f2.8 which is a terrific lens on the A7. And much better than my Zeiss Distagon 35 f2.8 in QBM1 mount that shows too much astigmatism which seems to be completely absent in the shots taken with the nFD 35 f2.8. It is also better than my sample of the Thorium concave FD 35 f2 SSC v1. While the Thorium might have a very slight advantage in center resolution it's edges never get as good as the lowly nFD 35 f2.8.
I think I paid 40 Euros for it. Built quality could be better though.
p.2 #2 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
I have the Nikkor 28/2.8 AiS and the Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8. I bought neither for < 100E but if you can find the Nikkor for a price you can stand, it may be work picking up as it's nearly (but not quite) as good as the CY 28/2.8. Both are built quite well.
The C/Y28 gets a lot of use on my A7r. It edges out the Nikkor all around but not by a huge margin.
p.2 #3 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Another really interesting Pentax 28 is the plain K mount 28 f/2, which has the same optical formula (but not the same coatings) as the C/Y mount Zeiss "Hollywood" 28 f/2, but in a much smaller package. It actually has a slightly smaller diameter than the plain K mount 28 f/3.5, but is 20mm longer. It costs a lot more too, but seems to go for far less than the C/Y mount Zeiss Hollywood.
I recently bought one, it's very sharp and renders nicely, it will be hard for me to part with it, or the K 50/1.4 if I was forced to sell.
p.2 #4 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
I have the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS and just picked up the C/Y 28 2.8. At f/11, they are really close. Notice any field curvature with the C/Y on the a7R? I'm waiting for a better adapter before I really put the C/Y through its paces, so far the Nikon seems better at wider apertures.
-Tim
michaelwatkins wrote:
I have the Nikkor 28/2.8 AiS and the Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8. I bought neither for < 100E but if you can find the Nikkor for a price you can stand, it may be work picking up as it's nearly (but not quite) as good as the CY 28/2.8. Both are built quite well.
The C/Y28 gets a lot of use on my A7r. It edges out the Nikkor all around but not by a huge margin.
p.2 #5 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
LightShow wrote:
I recently bought one, it's very sharp and renders nicely, it will be hard for me to part with it, or the K 50/1.4 if I was forced to sell.
This is also a lens I have looked at the rare times one shows up for sale. It normally goes for around 5x the price of the K 28/3.5 but you do gain quite a bit of speed of course, as well as noticebly more weight (almost 200g heavier). If it indeed is the same optical forumula as the CY 28/2 Hollywood, I would be curious how it works out as a landscape lens. Looking at the MTF's of the CY version, the corners appear to take a rapid dip. Do you see any softness in the extreme coners of the Pentax on the A7?
Here is the MTF for the CY version. The dip then rise at F5.6 almost looks classic Leica, (similar to what the Summilux R 35 looks like) which might account for some gorgeous rendering qualities I would think.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Looking at the MTFs on Zeiss's website at f/5.6 it seems to have a pretty big zone b dip.. So, LightShow can you let us know about that as well. Many thanks.
p.2 #7 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Looking at the MTFs on Zeiss's website at f/5.6 it seems to have a pretty big zone b dip.. So, LightShow can you let us know about that as well. Many thanks.
Yes, it's very curious. The Pentax version could very well behave differently (same design, optimized differently though). That's been the case sometimes with Minolta/ Leica lenses of the same basic design (Leica version optimized for central sharpness, Minolta version more uniform accross the frame but not quite as sharp in the center).
I also took a look at the Leica R Summicron 35 and it behaves very similar to the CY 28 Hollywood going by the MTF at 5.6 with that big dip, rise and then major drop in the corners.
p.2 #11 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have the FDn 35/2. It's alright but not as good as the Minolta MD 35/2.8's I have compared it to. Don't know about the FD 2.8 version.
Not great in term of bokeh, overall sharpeness edges to edges or ? Many thanks !
p.2 #12 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
clause wrote:
Not great in term of bokeh, overall sharpeness edges to edges or ? Many thanks !
It was pretty much worse on all accounts imo. The Minolta has particularly nice color, contrast, sharpness and bokeh wide open at 2.8. The Canon sufferes major abberations until stopped down at least two stops by comparison, which sort of negates it's speed advanatage over the slower 2.8 lens. By F 5.6/8, the Canon catches the Minolta as far as sharpness accross the frame (some areas/ zones of the Canon are sharper and some others with the Minolta) but before that it's not that close really. I believe I read where the Canon 2.8 version was really great btw. I also don't know how the older versions of the Canon 35/2 perform. My tests were on the A7r so the A7 may fare slightly better.
p.2 #13 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It was pretty much worse on all accounts imo. The Minolta has particularly nice color, contrast, sharpness and bokeh wide open at 2.8. The Canon sufferes major abberations until stopped down at least two stops by comparison, which sort of negates it's speed advanatage over the slower 2.8 lens. By F 5.6/8, the Canon catches the Minolta as far as sharpness accross the frame (some areas/ zones of the Canon are sharper and some others with the Minolta) but before that it's not that close really. I believe I read where the Canon 2.8 version was really great btw. I also don't know how the older versions of the Canon 35/2 perform. My tests were on the A7r so the A7 may fare slightly better.
p.2 #14 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
clause wrote:
Many thanks for the reply. Hmm maybe I should take a look at minolta then. Finding a cheap one from ebay or smth?
can I just check the exact name is it the Konica Minolta Hexanon f2.8 Rokkor ? I'm slightly confused. I appreciate it.
Cheers!
There are a few on ebay currently. You are looking for any of the following:
Minolta MD 35 2.8 or variations - MD W.Rokkor, MD W.Rokkor-X. All these have 49mm filter thread.
More rare is the late Minolta MC W.Rokkor-X (Not MC W.Rokkor-HG, which is an older design and not as good). This version - the desireable MC - has a 55mm filter thread and is a little better built than the above MD's. They all perform pretty much identically.
Price for these will likley range between $50 - $130 or so.
p.2 #15 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Tariq Gibran wrote:
There are a few on ebay currently. You are looking for any of the following:
Minolta MD 35 2.8 or variations - MD W.Rokkor, MD W.Rokkor-X. All these have 49mm filter thread.
More rare is the late Minolta MC W.Rokkor-X (Not MC W.Rokkor-HG, which is an older design and not as good). This version - the desireable MC - has a 55mm filter thread and is a little better built than the above MD's. They all perform pretty much identically.
Price for these will likley range between $50 - $130 or so.
p.2 #17 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Guys,
I'm wondering for those shooting Minolta, where did you all get your lens hood? I just bought a MD 35mm and looking for a lens hood. A cheap one that is. Its so expensive to get an original used. =/
p.2 #18 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
+1 to that question. I have 49 and 55mm threads but no hoods for 4 MDs.
Part of me would love to reunite original hoods to these pretty little lenses but then I ebay the price and now I have the same 'recommend me generic hoods' question.
p.2 #19 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Getting the correct hoods for the Minolta 35's is specifically tricky, even with the versions that use the 49mm filter thread. For instance, the slip-on Minolta hood for the last version of the MD (without any Rokkor in the name) will not properly fit the earlier MD versions that are marked MD Rokkor and MD Rokkor-X (the last MD only version has an indented ring on the barrel that this hood locks into, the earlier versions lack the indented ring!). Ask me how I know! The earlier MC 35 Rokkor-HG's use completely different hoods and filter thread sizes (52mm I believe). So, with the 35/2.8's, we have three different filter thread sizes - 49, 52 and 55.
I use the hood off my Minolta MC 28/2.5 on my late MC 35/2.8 (55mm thread) and sometimes this aftermarket hood with the 49mm versions (which seems like it should vignette slightly though I have not found that to actually be the case):
EDIT - corrected. I reversed the thread size of the early and late MC's. The late/ last MC (Rokkor-X with NO HG) is 55mm's. The earlier MC Rokkor-HG's use 52mm's.
p.2 #20 · Sony A7 - recommended sub €100 legacy lenses
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Getting the correct hoods for the Minolta 35's is specifically tricky, even with the versions that use the 49mm filter thread. For instance, the slip-on Minolta hood for the last version of the MD (without any Rokkor in the name) will not properly fit the earlier MD versions that are marked MD Rokkor and MD Rokkor-X (the last MD only version has an indented ring on the barrel that this hood locks into, the earlier versions lack the indented ring!). Ask me how I know! The earlier MC 35 Rokkor-HG's use completely different hoods and filter thread sizes (52mm I believe). So, with the 35/2.8's, we have three different filter thread sizes - 49, 52 and 55.
I use the hood off my Minolta MC 28/2.5 on my late MC 35/2.8 (52mm thread) and sometimes this aftermarket hood with the 49mm versions (which seems like it should vignette slightly though I have not found that to actually be the case):
