p.2 #2 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
I wondered how long it would be before Leica was mentioned! Actually it never appeared on my radar when I was searching out 24mms to try, so perhaps it hasn't the high reputation that it's shorter sibling has .(28/2.8 II.)
These were just the lenses I had/managed to acquire, for personal interest. From all accounts the C/Y has weaker edges and corners than the Z*, so I didn't pursue it.
I am slightly disappointed by the results of my MC though, so I might try another MD copy, though there isn't one on ebay Europe at the moment, at a reasonable price.
p.2 #4 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Mescalamba wrote:
I know that it doesnt have high reputation, but I was simply curious if its really that bad (I mean, how bad it can be as Leica R lens).
it's supposed to be the same optical design as minolta MC (and the minolta VFC used in this test).
p.2 #5 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
sebboh wrote:
it's supposed to be the same optical design as minolta MC (and the minolta VFC used in this test).
Derek,
I believe that Leica supposedly tweaked the Minolta design to perform somewhat better. But, I am not sure if that is the case. Additionally, in general Minolta lenses were supposed to be made to a tolerance of 1/3 stop and those made by Minolta and I would presume Leica made lenses themselves were to be made to a tolerance of 1/10 of a stop. This was to my understanding a large reason for the difference in costs between the Minolta and the Leica lenses. Additionally, from my understanding due to these standards at least in general Leica had a very high rejection rate of Minolta lenses (which in my understanding led to Leica tweaking and then making of the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit lenses). Much of this information was shared with me by friend Jim Lager author of 8 Leica books and former Leica employee.
p.2 #6 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Any more advice on uploading from Flickr, so only those on here can access full files, and my normal site not clogged up with the test results?
I remember now, those Leica answers are just what I've heard too.
Hardly able to use my broadband now!
p.2 #7 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
naturephoto1 wrote:
I believe that Leica supposedly tweaked the Minolta design to perform somewhat better. But, I am not sure if that is the case. Additionally, in general Minolta lenses were supposed to be made to a tolerance of 1/3 stop and those made by Minolta and I would presume Leica made lenses themselves were to be made to a tolerance of 1/10 of a stop. This was to my understanding a large reason for the difference in costs between the Minolta and the Leica lenses. Additionally, from my understanding due to these standards at least in general Leica had a very high rejection rate of Minolta lenses (which in my understanding led to Leica tweaking and then making of the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit lenses). Much of this information was shared with me by friend Jim Lager author of 8 Leica books and former Leica employee....Show more →
I have used more than 50 Minolta lenses in the last 3 years and the inconsistencies were very low, despite all of them being noticeably older than me . This is of course not a very big sample size but if I compare my experience here to that with modern lenses (50% of the Sony lenses I tested were noticeably decentered) I think it is safe to assume that Minolta lenses had very good QC standards, at least compared to todays standards.
Some time ago I tested several older Leica R lenses and the results were not any better or worse than what I would expect from a Minolta or Canon lens of the same era. I don't know the Leica system in any detail but what I have seen so far from those older lenses from the 70's and 80's does not justify the prices payed and the appreciation given to these lenses.
p.2 #8 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
timballic wrote:
Any more advice on uploading from Flickr, so only those on here can access full files, and my normal site not clogged up with the test results?
I remember now, those Leica answers are just what I've heard too.
Hardly able to use my broadband now!
Have you set it's privacy status to public? private by reevedata, on Flickr
p.2 #9 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Hi Phillip. I'm trying to make it so only those here have access to the files, perhaps as "friends", so they aren't public for all to see, as that would really disrupt my normal photostream.
Maybe opening a new Flickr account is the only way?
p.2 #10 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
timballic wrote:
Hi Phillip. I'm trying to make it so only those here have access to the files, perhaps as "friends", so they aren't public for all to see, as that would really disrupt my normal photostream.
Maybe opening a new Flickr account is the only way?
You could probably link to the full resolution. I have a second account for images like these for the same reason. So if you want to continiue doing such reviews (which I would welcome a lot) I think this would be the best way for you.
p.2 #11 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I have used more than 50 Minolta lenses in the last 3 years and the inconsistencies were very low, despite all of them being noticeably older than me . This is of course not a very big sample size but if I compare my experience here to that with modern lenses (50% of the Sony lenses I tested were noticeably decentered) I think it is safe to assume that Minolta lenses had very good QC standards, at least compared to todays standards.
Some time ago I tested several older Leica R lenses and the results were not any better or worse than what I would expect from a Minolta or Canon lens of the same era. I don't know the Leica system in any detail but what I have seen so far from those older lenses from the 70's and 80's does not justify the prices payed and the appreciation given to these lenses. ...Show more →
Hi Phillip,
I have looked at the Leica lenses that you reviewed. Unfortunately, with the exception of the 180mm f3.4 Apo Telyt and the 50mm f2 Summicron (and they too are old designs though the 50mm Summicron continued to be in production till the cancellation of the R system in 2009) you reviewed some very old designed lenses with the exception of the 21mm f4 Super Angulon (a Schneider made and designed lens for Leica) that were much improved for performance in a later design.
The R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V1 lens was a 1970 designed lens that was in production till 1992. The lens was replaced by the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 in 1994 and was in production till the R system was discontinued in 2009. The later lens was a vast improvement over the V1 and is thought to quite possibly be the best 28mm SLR ever offered. Unfortunately with this kind of performance and only 3700 made this lens has become extremely expensive.
The M 90mm f2.8 Tele Emarit was introduced in 1973 (year of manufacturer of your lens) and was in production until 1987. The lens was replaced by the much better performing M 90mm f2.8 Elmarit in 1988 and was in production until 2007.
The R 180mm f3.4 Apo Telyt lens, originally designed for the US Navy for best performance at or close to infinity was introduced in 1975 and was in production till 1995. Even today this lens is an outstanding performer particularly at or near infinity especially when stopped down to about f5.6.
The R 50mm f2 Summicron was introduced in 1976 and was in production until 2009. You have described and characterized this lens well as being a little soft in the center at f2 but surprisingly sharp into the corners. It does improve its performance at f2.8 and f4 and is a fine landscape lens in a rather small package.
The R 21mm f4 Super Angulon, as I mentioned was designed and manufactured for Leica by Schneider. The lens was introduced in 1971 and continued production until 1983. When introduced this was known as a very sharp lens in the center but sharpness dropped off toward the edges and the corners. But when introduced in 1971, this was considered one of the best UWA SLR lenses available.
As you mentioned in your review of the Leica lenses: "Of course there are other very important aspects about lenses which I couldn’t experience like bokeh, color and contrast or handling etc. but I would be surprised if these lenses performed that much better in these aspects than other lenses."
Leica lenses are known for their color rendering as well as how well that they deal with coma, and other design issues/aberrations. Additionally, at least until relatively recently, Leica lenses tended to offer a relatively equal sharpness from center to the edges more than most other makers. Leica did not necessarily strive to have lenses as sharp as possible in the center at the expense of performance at the edges.
The feel, finish, and focusing of Leica lenses is part of the experience when using Leica lenses. They normally use (d) self lubricating helicoids of brass on aluminum that added to the weight of the lens but also allowed for the usage of very light lubricants for the lenses.
You tend to pay more for Leica lenses than other lens makers due to their construction, feel, finish, performance, tighter mechanical tolerances, materials, being largely hand built, and limited production numbers.
p.2 #12 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
naturephoto1 wrote:
I have looked at the Leica lenses that you reviewed. Unfortunately, with the exception of the 180mm f3.4 Apo Telyt and the 50mm f2 Summicron (and they too are old designs though the 50mm Summicron continued to be in production till the cancellation of the R system in 2009) you reviewed some very old designed lenses with the exception of the 21mm f4 Super Angulon (a Schneider made and designed lens for Leica) that were much improved for performance in a later design.
Agreed, and I also mentioned it. My point though was that even in their time these lenses optical performance wasn't noticeably above that of other manufacturers.
Almost all the lenses I use daily are from the 70's and 80's so I have a good idea what to expect.
Take that 28mm lens, based on my results I can name two Minolta lenses which would outperform it (MC 2.5/28, late MD 2/28) and especially the MC lens costs only a fraction of it while the built quality is very nice as well (brass on aluminium focusing ring).
The Summicron-R 50's behavior doesn't make sense to me, are there are any applications besides shooting the night sky were you need sharp corners at f/2? For almost any picture I ever took the performance in the center is much more relevant and here I find it lacking.
For landscapes it is nice to have very good corners at f/4, but I use f/8 much more often and here my Minolta and Canon glass is as sharp.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Leica lenses are known for their color rendering as well as how well that they deal with coma, and other design issues/aberrations. Additionally, at least until relatively recently, Leica lenses tended to offer a relatively equal sharpness from center to the edges more than most other makers. Leica did not necessarily strive to have lenses as sharp as possible in the center at the expense of performance at the edges.
It would be interesting to look into colors a bit more and how much they matter today. So far I haven't seen a test which showed that another lens really had nicer colors than another. Of course some lenses have warmer or colder colors but that shouldn't be a relevant criterion today.
naturephoto1 wrote:
You tend to pay more for Leica lenses than other lens makers due to their construction, feel, finish, performance, tighter mechanical tolerances, materials, being largely hand built, and limited production numbers.
I think the most important factor for the price of these old lenses is the Leica name and not the performance. A Minolta MC generation lens will feel as nice and as mentioned in some of these cases it will outperform the Leica lens in most aspects which are relevant to me.
I can of course understand it when people like a lens because of it's characteristics and pay unreasonable prices for it. My Minolta 1.2/58 is technically an inferior lens to a Canon FD 1.4/50 which costs 15% of what the Minolta costs and weights about half of it and I most often use it at f/2, not f/1.2. But I prefer the rendering of the Minolta lens quite a bit. I have to confess though that I sometimes ask myself how much of that is autosuggestion.
p.2 #13 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Um, there is seriously lens as good as Leica R 28/2.8 v2?
MUST HAVE NOW!
Otherwise, I dont doubt Minolta, even tho I handled only their AF lenses (which are not considered their best), they are suprisingly good. But truth is I appreciate more colors that they can produce than rest of image quality.. (as far as I noticed, MC and MD were very similar in this aspect).
p.2 #14 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
So sorry about my broadband!
I have realised that the MC VFC is showing a real adapter issue showing up at infinity settings. At least I hope that is what it is. Looking back at my 5DII results with it, I can't detect anything wrong there. The results obviously aren't what it is fully capable of. I wish I had got an MD before starting the comparison now.
I've been studying my infinity-focus "brick wall" sequences and it is obvious that the Fuji has a dip in the "B" region, which is almost gone at F8 and completely gone at F11. In fact at F11, I'm finding the OM and Fuji results the most similar and pleasing of all. (Full marks to Fuji, I hadn't expected it to be as good as that, though, as I said earlier, it only catches up at the edges at F8, from F2.8-4, it is much weaker.)
As I expected to find, from what I'd heard, the FDn is probably a tad sharper in the centre than the OM and matches it in at edges and in corners, but it exhibits a rather unpleasant yellow colour, almost muddy (rather like that given by thorium containing optics) Probably not noticeable when viewed alone, but alongside the OM it is lacks the "clarity" of the other.
So, the FDn is best for sharpness, has good depth of field, worst for moustache distortion, yellow colouring, and my least favourite to handle! (Though another copy may have a more freely moving aperture ring.)
Most surprising to me is that the ZS isn't much, or any, sharper than the OM/Fuji/FD overall. I do realise that sharpness isn't everything, but because there's a lot of kidology involved (It's a ZEISS!), I'm wondering in a blind viewing, if I would really pick it out as my favourite over the OM after all! Also it is so much bigger and heavier than the others, it doesn't feel as well balanced on the A7.
p.2 #15 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Another opportunity
Using 2nd Flickr site. I've uploaded at 3200px there for larger views. I wouldn't have managed with broadband as it is, if I'd done them full size.They are equally sharpened.
Hopefully something to be getting on with before I can do them all properly, when my broadband connection is mended.
I focussed at F2.8 on the grasses in the centre, very carefully, using LV magnified and a Hoodman loupe. However, I've no idea if any of these lenses exhibit focus shift on stopping down? I'm showing F11 first as that is probably where these lenses would be used.(At least by me, for landscapes.)
p.2 #16 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Part of the reason for the above composition was to gauge difference in depth of field between the lenses, focussed at the same point, as accurately as I could, using LV magnified view and Hoodman Loupe. I don't know if there is focus shift with stopping down though.
Below, top, the OM with least depth of field behind the focus point, (Fuji very similar), and the ZS with the most, (FDn very similar). Top left corner. This is in keeping with what I observed using these lenses (OM and ZS) on the 5DII.
However, in the front corners, the result is reversed. Lower left corner.
(On flat brick wall with camera parallel to the wall, the corners are good on all, so I don't think this is an adapter issue.)
p.2 #17 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
I spoke earlier about the yellowness of the FDn cf the OM, so I thought I'd better show a clear example:
(NB. It was a blustery day, so leaf sharpness is not part of this comparison!)
In Lr5 Compare, 100%, OM on left, FDn on right, both at F11 1/100sec. Rather a muddy yellow cf the OM I think.
Again the extra depth of field of the FDn over the OM can be seen if you look at the pruned branches of the shrub at the base.
This is the whole shot. A local church where I do a lot of lens testing. This is the OM at F11, across the centre of the frame. I focus on the black fan cover to the left of the porch.
p.2 #18 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Another MD 24/2.8 (55mm ø 9:7) on it's way to me. Supposed to be very good condition and looks new.
I've paid a bit more than I wanted being a Buy-it-now on ebay Germany, but the last two in UK auctions went high too.
If it's good I'll be happy.
I wish I could add an MD 49mm ø 8:8 to the comparison, there are more available, but I'm all spent up, overspent in fact.
The only real comment about it is in this thread by Peire, but no comparison pics anywhere online. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1112518
p.2 #19 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
naturephoto1 wrote:
Derek,
I believe that Leica supposedly tweaked the Minolta design to perform somewhat better. But, I am not sure if that is the case. Additionally, in general Minolta lenses were supposed to be made to a tolerance of 1/3 stop and those made by Minolta and I would presume Leica made lenses themselves were to be made to a tolerance of 1/10 of a stop. This was to my understanding a large reason for the difference in costs between the Minolta and the Leica lenses. Additionally, from my understanding due to these standards at least in general Leica had a very high rejection rate of Minolta lenses (which in my understanding led to Leica tweaking and then making of the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit lenses). Much of this information was shared with me by friend Jim Lager author of 8 Leica books and former Leica employee.
there is a later version of the R 24/2.8 that is slightly tweaked over the minolta version and may have a different filter size if i recall correctly, but the optical design of the earlier releases of the lens were supposedly identical except tolerances. the difference in tolerances doesn't bother me much though, my experience with more than 10 copies of certain lenses from that era is that both leica and minolta lenses were very consistent in performance across copies. i wish i could say the same about contax and nikon lenses from the same era...
p.2 #20 · Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout
Hope to get more loaded from now on.
These are for flare control. All F11 1/500 Focussed on a beech nut in the centre, with magnified LV and using Hoodman loupe.
Hopefully I've got the sharpening better. The MC VFC seems fairly representative here.
. This is of course not a very big sample size but if I compare my experience here to that with modern lenses (50% of the Sony lenses I tested were noticeably decentered) I think it is safe to assume that Minolta lenses had very good QC standards, at least compared to todays standards. 
