Lynk 14, GT tops QLIII, RD, Others - Lens Test

[NickTrop]

Stumbled upon this link on the web. Never saw it before, perhaps it's old news.

Yes a bit of a silly comparison, not exactly scientific, yes conducted by a 70's rangefinder geek - but none the less, in this test the Yashica Lynx 14e and the Yashica GT topped the other cameras tested by a hair. The cameras in this test are:

Canonet GIII 17, Minolta Hi-Matic E, Olympus RD, Olympus SP, Yashica GT, Yashica Lynx 14E, and a Yashica MC.

Look at the CENTER 2,3,4,5,6 in the test pattern (not the 2,3,4,5,6 on the left). You will see that the 14e and the GT are the only two cameras that clearly resolve the detail of the numbers 5 and 6 as well as their associated pattern.


"From previous experience of these cameras the results did not really surprise me. There’s not much between them but the Lynx comes out just about best on resolution closely followed by the GT."

http://www.rogerprovins.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/7seventies.html

 

[Bill58]

Nick:

Thanks for the link!!!!!

 

[Henryzx]

To me the Olympus SP resolution looks way crisp than other in the group (if you look at the smallest digit "6") The GT could be 2nd or 3rd after the minolta.

 

[dragonx]

ick. the MC did pretty poorly there. i was tempted to go for one on ebay, but now i am swaying against the ebay trigger finger.

any other comparison links like this? i very much enjoyed it.

 

[Kat]

My eyes might be fooling me, but I agree with Henry's observation, I find the Oly SP the best, through followed by the Yashicas.

 

[NickTrop]

ick. the MC did pretty poorly there. i was tempted to go for one on ebay, but now i am swaying against the ebay trigger finger.

any other comparison links like this? i very much enjoyed it.

Yes, "ick" describes the MC in this test, pretty well. I was also surprised a little by the RD in the test. But, again, one shouldn't read too much into these things. There are scads of other lens test pages out there, but this is the only one I've encountered that compares some 70's Japanese fixed lens rangefinders. I'm toying with the idea of springing for some old issues of Modern Photograhy and so forth and printing snips of reviews of a couple of these things just to see what they said about them at the time. That might be fun. It's a matter of "getting around to it"... you know 🙄

Glad you enjoyed the post (though I didn't do any of the work 😀 )

Nick T.

 

[NickTrop]

My eyes might be fooling me, but I agree with Henry's observation, I find the Oly SP the best, through followed by the Yashicas.

Really? I looked at this on two monitors. My laptop at home and my desktop at the office and I agree with the guy who did the test. I can't make out the middle 6 on the SP. Now I'm going cross-eyed. However, this might be our (me and the page author) prejudice, as I have a Lynx 14 and a GTN (and a CC) but not a Minolta 35 SP.

The SP's lens, however, is (I think, don't quote me) a 7element 5 group lens at f1.8 (or 1.7, can't recall). The other 1.7/.8's are more standard 6 element 4 group double gauss designs. (The Lynx is a 7 element/5 group double gauss but is faster at f1.4). So, Minolta went with a different - more expensive, lens design with the SP. Supposed to be an excellent camera.

The one I wish he would have tested is the Konica Auto S2. Everyone raves about the lens on that one. I don't own it though. Happy with the ones I have, and I'm sure all here (except, perhaps, the MC) are of the same high standard.

Nick T.

 

[NickTrop]

Nick:

Thanks for the link!!!!!

Very belated, ya'velcome. (Geez, this thread came back from the dead 😱 )

 

[rcoder]

@NickTrop: a minor quibble, but isn't he testing the Olympus SP, not a Minolta?

Personally, I think that the differences between the SP and the Yashicas can mostly be attributed to differing levels of noise reduction and compression artifacts in the images -- while the center details might look a bit clearer in the Yashica output, the Oly does seem to have slightly crisper details on the larger numbers, which leads me to suspect that a slightly-too-agressive sharpening or NR filter may have been applied during scanning or scaling.

 

[NickTrop]

Thanks, rcoder. Minolta SP = Oly SP (Long day : )

And, yes, you can't read too much into these tests. Too many variables, done by (no offense) an amateur. That said, I have no quibbles with the lens performance of any of the four JFLRF's I own and minor differences in resolution aren't the distinguishing feature of those I own, though I'm sure they exist. It's the signature of each lens and subtle differences in how they "paint" a scene that makes a difference. Even here, I can't say I have a clear favorite, really, among them. The GSN is very nice as is the Konica Auto S3 I own. The Lynx is great in low light, usable at 1.4... etc. As always take such comparisons with a grain, they're just fun to peruse.

 

[jan normandale]

Nick, I think the link is missing in your original post? I'm not finding one visible or a cut and paste. My cursor is also inactive as I scroll it across the posting.

 

[reub2000]

[FONT=&quot]Hardly a scientific test I know, but it made for an interesting few hours on a foul weather day

He's right. He tested the center of the lens, where optical problems are least likely to occur.
[/FONT]

 

[JeffGreene]

Nick, I think the link is missing in your original post? I'm not finding one visible or a cut and paste. My cursor is also inactive as I scroll it across the posting.

Jan:

It's at the bottom of the post. You may have missed it since it looks like it could be part of a signature.

Cheers,

 

[40oz]

are all these lenses the same focal length? IMHO, I'd kind of expect the longest focal length to win a test of this kind.

And let's not even get into what a test is worth if you are going to ignore the sharpness at the corners.

To be fair, I think the test shows people what they want to see, rather than anything meaningful. All lenses performed quite well, and drawing any kind of conclusion about the worthiness of any given model based on that page is silly. It merely makes it clear that they are all comparable (in the center, at least 🙂 ).

 

[dragonx]

I'm toying with the idea of springing for some old issues of Modern Photograhy and so forth and printing snips of reviews of a couple of these things just to see what they said about them at the time. That might be fun. It's a matter of "getting around to it"... you know 🙄
Nick T.

i will look through my parents old electronic magazines next month. might find some articles there. (we are cleaning out the house)

what's the difference between the lens on the s2 and that on the s3 ? you say you have an s3 but wish the writer had looked into the s2... i saw some go on ebay in the last two days for over $100. with the way i have been behaving on ebay lately, maybve i will wait a while before i begin trolling for the autos.

 

[shadowfox]

I've stumbled upon this page long time ago and couldn't find it again.

As some mentioned here, I also saw the sample from the Oly SP to be the sharpest. This is consistent with real pictures I'ved compared between the Canonet GIII QL17 and the Oly 35 SP. I don't have a Yashica to compare with, but I've seen pictures from it and it is almost as sharp as the Oly 35 SP.

I agree that the Konica S2 or better yet, the Auto S3 should be in this test.

 

[NickTrop]

It's not a serious test. I still see what the page author sees but the differences are truly negligible. The title of the thread was to echo the link, and "get attention" (which it did). Don't own a Konica S2 but I trust they're one of the greats based on the consensus of opinion. I have the Lynx 14e, which I find berry good optics and that f1.4 fast lens. I have an S3 though. The lens has a different signature, but I don't see a visible difference in sharpness over the GSN in prints. Personally, I think all of these are basically in the same class.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Considering the SP has a shorter lens by about 3mm and that some people thought it looked better than the Yashicas anyhow, I'd say the SP is the clear winner.

Other notes: The much-loved Canonet GIII has the worst contrast of the bunch, and the cheap Minolta Himatic E has the best. (but with only so-so resolution) Perhaps the Himatic has the best contrast because of fewer glass surfaces to go through due to fewer lens elements?

In real photos, that cheap HiMatic might just give the best pix because of that. Resolution on all of these are good & very close to one another. But the contrast of a simple lens design with fewer elements and good coatings is noticable.

That's not to say I'd turn down a Lynx 14 if I found one at a good price. 😉

Nick - Maybe after I've shot a few rolls through my Auto S2, we can trade for a while? (Lynx 14 for Auto S2) I'm curious about the Lynx 14 & you're curious about the Auto S2. I bet this great beast of a camera would make you turn your nose up in contempt of the more humble Auto S3...

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Speaking of good price, greyhoundman seems to have a Lynx 14E in the classifieds.

😀

 

[JonR]

I have just bought a GT on Ebay so it will be very interesting to see how it works out now that I am going to test it on the same subjects where I have before used my CC, GTN and MG-1 (without finding much of a differences between those three lenses). Also included in the purchase what the "Auto-up" attached lens for objects at closer range - it will be fun to test that one too!
/Jon