I don't think you're going to see an optical difference between an MM and AE lens unless you are looking at bokeh balls with the lens stopped down 1-2 stops. (Most) AE's will form a "Ninja Star" pattern in the aperture when stopped down 1-2 stops, and that disappears when stopped further. This is really the only difference, aside from (maybe) slightly better coatings on some MM versions and the fact that (last time I looked) Zeiss will only service MM's now.
Surprisingly the MMJ not only performs better in the corners but also in the center! Check the clock in the tower. At the apertures f2.8, f4 and f5.6 the MMJ is sharper with more details in the center. Also in the corners The MMJ copy performs better than AEJ copy at those apertures. Check the pictures with zoom 200%-500%!
Ha! Maybe, but honestly, I would put it down to sample variation or even a slightly different focus position (you are manually focusing, so even a tiny difference could affect the sharpness.)
I did a LOT of research (I mean a LOT) when I got interested in C/Y lenses a few years ago, and the general consensus is that there were no optical changes to the lenses when they went from AE to MM. A few lenses *may* have had some very small tweaks, but the main difference is the aperture blade movement and more mature T* coatings. (Which could contribute to the better performance in your 28/2.8 test!)
If you ever want to treat yourself, pick up a C/Y 100mm f/2 Planar. Probably the "best" lens I have ever owned. (And I've owned many.) Critically sharp from edge to edge even wide open at f/2, with very little CA or fringing (only visible in extreme conditions), and all that Zeiss micro contrast, color and pop. Even the Bokeh is smoother and more pleasing than most "Zeiss" designed lenses. It is arguably the crown jewel of the C/Y line.
Activatedfx wrote:
Ha! Maybe, but honestly, I would put it down to sample variation or even a slightly different focus position (you are manually focusing, so even a tiny difference could affect the sharpness.)
...
It seems I have the same 'sample variation' as Chris9 as my AE and MM 28's perform like his!
Interesting. Well, as I said, there may have been some slight tweaks to some of the MM's. I've only purchased MM's, so I never had the opportunity to do a test! Enjoy!
Activatedfx wrote:
Interesting. Well, as I said, there may have been some slight tweaks to some of the MM's. I've only purchased MM's, so I never had the opportunity to do a test! Enjoy!
I suspect that any lens that was in production for a long time has had a variety of changes to it's design and/or components, maybe due to material availability or manufacturing practices changing, so has effectively changed considerably whilst still being considered 'the same optical design'. Lenses like the Zuiko 1.4/50 comes to mind but various others which started with radioactive lens elements and then changed to non-radioactive elements are still considered to be the same optical design yet how can they be? I think changes creep in for a variety of reasons and are never reported or considered as changes to the optical design per se.
According to this source http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide the C/Y MM 2.8 28mm was officially improved over the AE version. So was the 25mm 2.8, 135mm 2.8 and 135mm 2.0. I just wanted to test it myself to see how big the difference is. If the weather is better I will repeat the test and include f8 and f11 to see if the AEJ catches up. copy variance at the end cannot be excluded as I have only the two lenses. But anyway I dont care as I am only interested in which lens of the two is the keeper.
Ah. Right. I knew there were a few lenses that were "officially" updated, but I didn't think it was the 28/2.8. It's been awhile since I've perused the RedUser thread. I officially stand corrected! haha
chris9 wrote:
Surprisingly the MMJ not only performs better in the corners but also in the center! Check the clock in the tower. At the apertures f2.8, f4 and f5.6 the MMJ is sharper with more details in the center. Also in the corners The MMJ copy performs better than AEJ copy at those apertures. Check the pictures with zoom 200%-500%!
I came across the same process with Distagons 28/2.8 and 25/2.8 C/Y AE vs MM on the A7/A72.
The MMs were sharper in corners and have slightly less CA at wider apertures.
More - there were differences of the same type between older and newer AE Distagons.
Later AEs with SN of 63xxx-65xx were better than earlier ones - 58xx-59xx.Then again early 68-74xx MMs were better than later AEs.Late MMs like 84xx were then even slightly more punchier and contrastier than early MMs.
The most pronounced differences were between the early AEs and the late MMs.
Stopped to f11 however,lenses do not differ that much in the real life pictures.
I repeated the test above yesterday with sunny weather. I shot with all apertures between f2.8 and f11 twice with both lenses AEJ 6 1xx xxx and MMJ 8 1xx xxx C/Y 28mm/2.8 and compared the best results. The focus was on the clock.
And sorry for the last comparison you are right that the AE lens was not correctly focused!
The results now are pretty close for the AE and MM lenses on my A7I. Identical center sharpness. Both suffer from similar purple fringing near the corners. And only in the very extreme corners there seems to be an advantage of the MM. The rendering is also the same.
Normally I don't post much outside of the huge Sony FE thread, but today I stumbled upon this one. I mostly use Voigtländer and speciality/creative effect lenses now, but still have a couple of C/Y lenses and take them out sometimes. Here are some older winter shots from C/Y 28mm/2.8:
Beautiful sets as usual, Helena! I particularly like "Little farm" which puts the fog to good use. If you post in the C/Y Image thread, your work won't scroll off to Page 4 in the first six hours!
