sebboh wrote:
my tak smc 50/1.4 is the sharpest 50/1.4 i have in the center 1/2 of the frame as well as the most contrasty lens i have at f/1.4. it is surprisingly weak on the extreme corners of aps-c though (haven't tried it on FF, but can only imagine it would get worse), where my rokkor 50/1.4 easily surpasses it despite not being the sharpest lens wide open.
Stopped down between 5.6-8, my sample is sharp into the corners on FF (24MP). In fact, it was sharper then the other 50's I compared it to at the time which included a Minolta 50 2.8 Macro and a Minolta 50 1.7. I was really surprised to find it better then the Macro into the corners though it was at longer distances, say 50 yards. I might have just lucked out with a particularly good copy of that lens from what you guys are saying.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Stopped down between 5.6-8, my sample is sharp into the corners on FF (24MP). In fact, it was sharper then the other 50's I compared it to at the time which included a Minolta 50 2.8 Macro and a Minolta 50 1.7. I was really surprised to find it better then the Macro into the corners though it was at longer distances, say 50 yards. I might have just lucked out with a particularly good copy of that lens from what you guys are saying.
it's entirely possible, you have an extremely good copy. i'm assuming your talking about autofocus minoltas? my tak is very good in the corners at f/5.6 and f/8 as well (it's faster than f/4 where the corners really suffer), but even at f/5.6 and smaller the canon and rokkor are still better. my tak is definitely better in the corners than my minolta MD 50/1.7 and zuiko 50/1.8 though (as well as a fair number of lenses).
I really wanted to get a Zeiss Sonnar 1.5 ZM for my Leica but given its+$1000 price which I find rather steep for a lens, that is sort of flawed optically (though in a good way) the Jup 3's seemed a good alternative however I found that finding one thats calibrated to work correctly with the rangefinder is pretty tough.
On the NEX however, focus shifts et al wouldn't be an issue with the live view focusing so one wouldn't need to be so choosey with finding a perfect version and ideally could get that classic Sonnar rendering style on the cheap
Or at least thats my theory but would be curious to hear if anyones had much luck before I send some money to one of those former Soviet states that still seem stockpiled with Jupiters
millsart wrote:
Anyone tried a Jupiter 3 on the NEX ?
cavewalker posted a shot or two somewhere in this thread, just mfd shots i think. they seem to have the same basic look as the zm but lower contrast (and of course more variability in sharpness across samples).
i've been looking for nikkor 5cm f/1.4 to get 50mm sonnar that can focus a little closer (.5m), prices seem to have gone crazy on those though so i might get a jupiter 3 and just accept the long mfd or see if i can modify it.
sebboh wrote:
it's entirely possible, you have an extremely good copy. i'm assuming your talking about autofocus minoltas? my tak is very good in the corners at f/5.6 and f/8 as well (it's faster than f/4 where the corners really suffer), but even at f/5.6 and smaller the canon and rokkor are still better. my tak is definitely better in the corners than my minolta MD 50/1.7 and zuiko 50/1.8 though (as well as a fair number of lenses).
Yes, compared to AF Minolta lenses. OT and a boring shot to boot! so I apologize but, just for some context, I took this shot this morning with my FF a900 and S-M-C 50 1.4 Tak. F8 and infinity focus. All crops 100% with default ACR sharpening. I have not used a 50 that performs better than this at infinity, even at F8, though I do want to try the Leica 60 Macro and Summicron 50 F2 someday.
Hi, I could not resist sharing with my latest addition: I got a bunch of rare Minolta Rokkors last week. They came in worn out and crumbling cases, but turned out to be in excellent condition. Theses are my first Minolta lenses and I am surprised at the high build quality - they feel more solid than modern SLR Zeiss and Leica R lenses. I am now awaiting the adapter I ordered yesterday.
here is a quick picture of them: http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy126/Picturesofmine-Album-2010-/on%20sale/various155a.jpg
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Hi, I could not resist sharing with my latest addition: I got a bunch of rare Minolta Rokkors last week. They came in worn out and crumbling cases, but turned out to be in excellent condition. Theses are my first Minolta lenses and I am surprised at the high build quality - they feel more solid than modern SLR Zeiss and Leica R lenses. I am now awaiting the adapter I ordered yesterday.
here is a quick picture of them: http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy126/Picturesofmine-Album-2010-/on%20sale/various155a.jpg
awesome! old minolta MC's and early MD's have fantastic build, better than anything you can get for slr's today including the new ZEs and voigtlanders, not sure if i'd say they're better than the old leica Rs though. minolta actually did some design and manufacturing for leica for a bit. if i recall correctly, a number of the zoom and mirror lenses for the leica R series were actually minolta designs as were the 24/2.8 and 16mm fisheye.
I looked at the results of a small test I did between Canon FD 50L and FL 58mm f1.2 couple weeks ago. I only tested them at f1.2. I will do some more testing, but so far the 58 has less contrast, but not necessarily less sharpness. At close focusing distances 58mm seems to be slightly better. Now, this may be due to longer focal length, as I did not step back to compensate for it. I also took some shots with fd 85L, which was the sharpest and gave the best bokeh - no surprise as it is longer.
sebboh wrote:
awesome! old minolta MC's and early MD's have fantastic build, better than anything you can get for slr's today including the new ZEs and voigtlanders, not sure if i'd say they're better than the old leica Rs though. minolta actually did some design and manufacturing for leica for a bit. if i recall correctly, a number of the zoom and mirror lenses for the leica R series were actually minolta designs as were the 24/2.8 and 16mm fisheye.
edit: is that a 35/1.8?
It is 35/1.8 indeed. I know from forum talk that Leicaphils do not regard their 24/2.8 highly - maybe because of this connection. At the same time Rokkor 24/2.8 is very treasured among Minolta users.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
It is 35/1.8 indeed. I know from forum talk that Leicaphils do not regard their 24/2.8 highly - maybe because of this connection. At the same time Rokkor 24/2.8 is very treasured among Minolta users.
i'm sure the connection would not engender the love of leicaphiles, but there are other reasons not to like the lens. namely weak corner resolution, much like a certain other 24mm equiv lens (not to mention any names). also, by all accounts the leica 28/2.8 is such a superlative lens that most everything looks weak compared to it.
i have the newer rokkor 24/2.8, which i love for its color and rendering not for it's sharpness, though it is quite sharp in the center and not as weak in the corners (on film) as the sony 16mm is.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
I looked at the results of a small test I did between Canon FD 50L and FL 58mm f1.2 couple weeks ago. I only tested them at f1.2. I will do some more testing, but so far the 58 has less contrast, but not necessarily less sharpness. At close focusing distances 58mm seems to be slightly better. Now, this may be due to longer focal length, as I did not step back to compensate for it. I also took some shots with fd 85L, which was the sharpest and gave the best bokeh - no surprise as it is longer....Show more →
The FD should be sharper, esp the L. The FL 58 was upgraded when it went to 55. Somewhere I read a big test of all of them, the FL 55 held it's own pretty well, but the 50 L aspherical was a cut above. The nFD version is really light for that size also--great lens to own.
uhoh: i had not heard that smc-m was the sharpest, i had always heard that it was the least sharp while smc-a was the sharpest but with worse build quality. to be honest i never really paid much attention to those claims one way or another since it is the same optical design by the same company. i suspect the differences people see are most likely due to sample variation. it's certainly possible they tweaked things for different optimal distances or something though, and i'm sure the coatings improved with time.
edit: uhoh - on your 100% sample crops i can't really make any judgments since each is sharper than the other at different points (focus isn't the same)....Show more →
sebboh, on re-researching you are right, formulas identical, just my optimisim, hehe.
also sorry about focus on samples--agreed impossible to judge. Should be less lazy and use tripod.
Uhoh, I will test them more!
Sebboh, it only shows how relative the prize one lens receives can be, especially if it has not been contrasted with lenses in other systems. Should be easier now, with the advent of mirrorless! has anyone done a shootout between the 28R v2 and the best from other systems?
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Uhoh, I will test them more!
Sebboh, it only shows how relative the prize one lens receives can be, especially if it has not been contrasted with lenses in other systems. Should be easier now, with the advent of mirrorless! has anyone done a shootout between the 28R v2 and the best from other systems?
i've heard from a fair number of people that they tested the 28R against the c/y 28/2.8 and the leica was the clear winner for across the frame sharpness. no experience with either myself.
Hi ... I'm Katie and I just wanted to say that I LOVE this thread. I read it religiously and have just ordered my NEX5 (with 16 2.8) and a Rokkor 50 1.2 (and an adaptor through Rainbow). I am so excited - just had to share!!
