I made several shots in different situations to avoid errors because of different
focuspoints and whatever, but the result were always
the same. The Minolta has slightly more contrast against the light.
Perhaps the coating here is better or because of the Lens sample.
I have the Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor MC CLE version of the lens. These are the latest and best coatings which are multicoated. I am not sure if the Leica M 40mm Summicron or the older Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor CL version are multicoated. As I understand it at least the CLE version has one element made with different glass than the Leica due to the glass being no longer available.
There are differences to consider in terms of the filter size in that the Leica uses a 39mm X 0.75mm 5.5 series filter size while the Minoltas use the much more standard 40.5mm filter size.
I heard there was a big Sake party and it tainted the second coatings.
The lens is so nice and tiny. WO it is not remotely strong outside the central frame, in stark contrast to the also small v4 cron of the same vintage, which is unbelievable closeup WO. But the 40/2 does get better with every stop and it's very respectable at F/8. $ for MTF, the v4 cron is a far better value at around 900 vs 375, but I like the little 40/2 alot.
uhoh7 wrote:
The lens is so nice and tiny. WO it is not remotely strong outside the central frame, in stark contrast to the also small v4 cron of the same vintage, which is unbelievable closeup WO. But the 40/2 does get better with every stop and it's very respectable at F/8. $ for MTF, the v4 cron is a far better value at around 900 vs 375, but I like the little 40/2 alot.
hmm, mine cron was quite respectable across the frame at f/2, though better at mid distance than infinity. at 20 ft or closer i wouldn't hesitate to put the subject anyplace except the extreme corner wide open. the 50 cron is better though, as it should be with the longer focal length. there is a bit of sombrero like field curvature that makes focusing off center difficult with a rangefinder...
here's my mid distance full sized sample i've shown a lot: f/2 mid distance
and an off center portrait full sized sample: f/2 portrait
I've had two copies of the Minolta lens, I think both were the CLE version. Awesome lens, one of my all time favorites in M mount. $ for $, I don't think there is a better standard lens with moderately-fast aperture that you can slap onto an M camera.
However, for small size, light weight, and awesome look with character, I prefer the Canon 35/2 LTM.
Yes, the 35/1.5 has an awesome look. They are often hard to find, and when you do find them they're normally around 35 cron V4 pricing.
The biggest (only?) shortcoming of these Canon LTM lenses is the min focus distance being ~.9m
sebboh wrote:
hmm, mine cron was quite respectable across the frame at f/2, though better at mid distance than infinity. at 20 ft or closer i wouldn't hesitate to put the subject anyplace except the extreme corner wide open. the 50 cron is better though, as it should be with the longer focal length. there is a bit of sombrero like field curvature that makes focusing off center difficult with a rangefinder...
here's my mid distance full sized sample i've shown a lot: f/2 mid distance
and an off center portrait full sized sample: f/2 portrait
Those are pretty shots but nothing to see the edges. Very nice old school just like mine, which is LN condition. Let's see an infinity test though:
F2 is certainly very usable, desired in fact for a nice dreamy look. You could take it as an advantage and to be honest this is the best small M lens wider than 50 I ever saw on the A7 cameras, excepting the big ones like CV 35/1.2.
I'd expect it is better yet on film in the outer zones.
The CV 35/1.4 is about the same price, also small, but is not as even across the frame with a stock A7 and F/2 is not great outside the center: there are some serious waves, though by F/8 it is also pretty good. At F/11 the CV may actually be stronger than the 40/2 on the stock Sony or Leica, but with more distortion.
But if I had to pick one tiny lens to put on a A7, it would be the 50 cron v4, which all the Sonys seem to love and is great on M also. Certainly personal taste, FL, money in the wallet, and even weight (125 gram vs 197 gram) might trump the power Mandler's Cron brings to the table. But for value at 900 bucks it's arguably more a steal than the rokkor. I love the render myself at faster speeds.
uhoh7 wrote:
Those are pretty shots but nothing to see the edges. Very nice old school just like mine, which is LN condition. Let's see an infinity test though:
i was just disputing your statement about poor sharpness outside the center. as i said, it's much worse at infinity than mid distance at f/2, and not near as good as the 50. nonetheless you can see good detail right up the corner on my first shot and plenty of detail outside the central 2/3 on my second.
the 50 has much better infinity performance and is more consistent across the frame, but it's also 3x the price and 3x the size.
edit: also charlie, your copy appears to be much sharper in the central 2/3 on the a7 than on the m9. i suspect it could use a calibration for your rangefinder.
ISO1600 wrote:
Yes, the 35/1.5 has an awesome look. They are often hard to find, and when you do find them they're normally around 35 cron V4 pricing.
The biggest (only?) shortcoming of these Canon LTM lenses is the min focus distance being ~.9m
I remember that link now... I do like the look but at the same time feel the files have a look currently typical of a fair amount of massaging in post with shadow/highlight/clarity adjustments. It seems to further distort certain imperfections of the lens.
I have the Canon 35/2 and 50/1.4. More so the 35, but another shortcoming IMO is they feel a bit on the delicate side. That said, I do enjoy their color characteristics that remind me of 1960s-70s era color photography.
rscheffler wrote:
I remember that link now... I do like the look but at the same time feel the files have a look currently typical of a fair amount of massaging in post with shadow/highlight/clarity adjustments. It seems to further distort certain imperfections of the lens.
I have the Canon 35/2 and 50/1.4. More so the 35, but another shortcoming IMO is they feel a bit on the delicate side. That said, I do enjoy their color characteristics that remind me of 1960s-70s era color photography.
The Canons are often beat up and hazy, though they may clean easy. 35/1.5 vs 35/2 is very much like 50/1.2 vs 50/1.4. The fast ones are totally different. Edges are basically terrible, but centers are very good (1.2 has stronger center than 1.4). The slower 2 are very modern. The CV 35/2.5 is modeled on the Canon 35/2. Neither are good on A7.
With the 40/2, many less Minolta versions were made. They are often far cleaner, and cheaper. They were assembled under supervision, so are at least as good as the german ones. Usually they are better. Mine looks like it's new.
ISO1600 wrote:
Yes, the 35/1.5 has an awesome look. They are often hard to find, and when you do find them they're normally around 35 cron V4 pricing.
The biggest (only?) shortcoming of these Canon LTM lenses is the min focus distance being ~.9m
rscheffler wrote:
I remember that link now... I do like the look but at the same time feel the files have a look currently typical of a fair amount of massaging in post with shadow/highlight/clarity adjustments. It seems to further distort certain imperfections of the lens.
I have the Canon 35/2 and 50/1.4. More so the 35, but another shortcoming IMO is they feel a bit on the delicate side. That said, I do enjoy their color characteristics that remind me of 1960s-70s era color photography.
uhoh7 wrote:
The Canons are often beat up and hazy, though they may clean easy. 35/1.5 vs 35/2 is very much like 50/1.2 vs 50/1.4. The fast ones are totally different. Edges are basically terrible, but centers are very good (1.2 has stronger center than 1.4). The slower 2 are very modern. The CV 35/2.5 is modeled on the Canon 35/2. Neither are good on A7.
With the 40/2, many less Minolta versions were made. They are often far cleaner, and cheaper. They were assembled under supervision, so are at least as good as the german ones. Usually they are better. Mine looks like it's new. ...Show more →
Thanks for the insight, Charlie. Somewhere down my list of future acquisitions is the Canon 50/1.2 and 35/1.5 for precisely the reasons you outlined. Indeed, the 35/2 and 50/1.4 stopped down a bit are as sharp as anything current, if somewhat less saturated and a bit lower contrast. It makes them quite versatile if one desires some wide open imperfection while also requiring good stopped down performance.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the insight, Charlie. Somewhere down my list of future acquisitions is the Canon 50/1.2 and 35/1.5 for precisely the reasons you outlined. Indeed, the 35/2 and 50/1.4 stopped down a bit are as sharp as anything current, if somewhat less saturated and a bit lower contrast. It makes them quite versatile if one desires some wide open imperfection while also requiring good stopped down performance.
The Canon 50/1.2 is so mis-understood it's mind boggling. Canon 50/1.2 LTM by unoh7, on Flickr
But I'd read so many totally opposite reports..."it's soft".."it's sharp" ...I thought maybe I should take a look. It's light and not too big compared to any other super-speed except Sonnetar, or thePen-F Olympus 42/1.2.
Now, I should try it at F/8 and especially F/11, where the edges may well come in. But what do you think?
I was impressed. This is not a perfect copy, like most it has little marks on the front element because they stick out so far, but I did take it apart and clean it.
The M9 really gives these old devils their due, I think
Back to the topic, I shot the 40/2 again today: L1056675-3 by unoh7, M-Rokkor CL 40/2 WO
This image is very slightly straightened. I think what is interesting here is the glass on the right edge, which gives an idea of the FC WO, which is not unusual of course, but something to take into account. I think the bokeh is charming but busy.
