farlymac
PF McFarland
I've got some Tamron zooms that I prefer over many of my Nikkors or Rokkors.
PF
PF
Minolta Rokkor MD vs Nikkor AI
- Thread starter 68degrees
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 58
- Views 4K
ZeissFan
Veteran
I agree that nearly all lens makers have stars and dogs. I was never that impressed with the Nikkor 50/2. I really like the 105/2.5. The 43-86 zoom has been considered to be only average, although my roommate's photos always seemed good. But that was before pixel-peeping.
It seems that the Zeiss 25/2.8 Distagon gets dumped on a lot.
For most of us, however, I think it's a useless endeavor to try to figure out whether one camera maker's line of lenses is better than another. Generally, the differences are small enough that it's inconsequential.
By the way, I actually like the 50/1.4 Planar, but many people disagree.
It seems that the Zeiss 25/2.8 Distagon gets dumped on a lot.
For most of us, however, I think it's a useless endeavor to try to figure out whether one camera maker's line of lenses is better than another. Generally, the differences are small enough that it's inconsequential.
By the way, I actually like the 50/1.4 Planar, but many people disagree.
FrankS
Registered User
The real question is: How good is the photographer?
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I've always found the Rokkors to give very pleasing results -- I think the comparison to Leica in character to be pretty apt (and someone earlier mentioned that Leica found Minolta's lenses to be compatible in "look" to their own). Out of focus characteristics are something they have always been rated highly for. I've also found the build quality of the Rokkors to be really top quality, particularly the MC and earlier MD ones. They are very good value.
redisburning
Well-known
no, the question is clearly what is better between minolta MD and Nikkor AI lenses.
FrankS
Registered User
Take 2 camera systems, Nikon and Minolta, and 2 photographers, and give them each the same photo opp with both systems. The biggest difference in the results will be between the 2 photographers, not between the 2 systems. Wouldn't you agree?
68degrees
Well-known
of course I agree with your scenario, who wouldnt? But thats a totally different subject and not relevant to this thread. Red is right. My thread is about Nikkor vs Minolta, not the photographer using the lenses.
What about one photographer that has Nikkor and Rokkor in his bag. All other things being equal, which lens should he use and why? That would be a more relevant scenario to this thread. Cheers.
DominikDUK
Well-known
1. MTF was a B.S. Marketing gag from Zeiss and was intended as such. MTF results have very little to do with real world performance because you will never find line resolution and Siemens Star in the real world outside of a lab or TV screen. Furthermore the MTF charts favours a certain type of lens (somewhat higher contrast) and punishes others that might have better resolution in reality.
2. Since you love MTF according to 20 years of MTF chart peeping the sharpest lenses for 35mm (corner to corner Sharpness) are (source http://tidningenfoto.se/de-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista/):It should also be noted that Panavision and other MP Lens manufacturers often used elements from Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Leica but none from Pentax, or Minolta and the lenses they build beat most if not all Still camera lenses by a wide margin. I love my Minolta lenses as I love my Nikon and Leica lenses but as most people will tell you Leica lens do not have the best overall sharpness but the best overall compromise same applies to Minolta they have a similiar look to Leica because they made the same compromises as Leica did. Nikon on the other followed more the Zeiss philosophy of lens making contrast over everything, Leica and Minolta center resolution over everything. Neither is better or sharper, lenses are a series of compromises and a photographer should choose the best compromise for him.
2. Since you love MTF according to 20 years of MTF chart peeping the sharpest lenses for 35mm (corner to corner Sharpness) are (source http://tidningenfoto.se/de-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista/):It should also be noted that Panavision and other MP Lens manufacturers often used elements from Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Leica but none from Pentax, or Minolta and the lenses they build beat most if not all Still camera lenses by a wide margin. I love my Minolta lenses as I love my Nikon and Leica lenses but as most people will tell you Leica lens do not have the best overall sharpness but the best overall compromise same applies to Minolta they have a similiar look to Leica because they made the same compromises as Leica did. Nikon on the other followed more the Zeiss philosophy of lens making contrast over everything, Leica and Minolta center resolution over everything. Neither is better or sharper, lenses are a series of compromises and a photographer should choose the best compromise for him.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Didn't think he meant that rudely -- I took this as a pure gearhead thread (which ignores the obviously true statement you make).
As for the post about MTF being "marketing BS" -- really? I would like to know more.
DominikDUK
Well-known
MTF asesses contrast not sharpness, contrast does in fact not equal sharpness also MTF test are conducted differently by different Manufacturers. The MTF is mostly used for marketing purposes, does it help in assesing a lens capability sure, does it tell the whole story about the lens performance most certainly not. The pure unadultered real and not computed MTF (done by most manufacturers) is not a marketing tool but a scientific one, but in reality it is not used in a responsible and scientific way. Another thing is the quality of the overall testing setup I would trust Zeiss and Leica as well as Olympus to do it right. Canon and Nikon use computed MTF so BS. Independent MTF testers do often not have the capabilities to do serious test MTF is not only a result of the lens but also of the Sensor/Film and the Camera or other system. So basically the MTF tells you how the tested System works but that includes many variables (bad camera mount or film flatness, Sensor heating etc...) what it doesn't tell you is how the lens will work in a different setup.
redisburning
Well-known
Photodo's MTF testing was done by Hasselblad tho, and are real measurements from a bench.
And contrast is sharpness. Extinction is simply the highest frequency that passes a contrast threshold. Furthermore, measured MTF is actually a very accurate indicator of performance, especially when not only the levels but the shapes of the curves are taken into account. Subjective Quality Function was able to distill MTF into a single number precisely because you can take contrast readings at a certain frequency that is relevant for a given output size.
The eye has a contrast response and while it is true that color complicates things practice ALWAYS bears out a correct and relevant measurement. MTF happens to be one of them.
System MTF is a fine argument and one that I appreciate as valid but that's not what's being discussed here.
As far as your list goes there are many sharper lenses than those, but they only included those they tested. The Coastal Optics 60/4 APO is easily sharper than the vast majority of those lenses, for example, yet doesnt make the list. Neither does the 280/4 APO Telyt or the 135/2 APO Sonnar.
And contrast is sharpness. Extinction is simply the highest frequency that passes a contrast threshold. Furthermore, measured MTF is actually a very accurate indicator of performance, especially when not only the levels but the shapes of the curves are taken into account. Subjective Quality Function was able to distill MTF into a single number precisely because you can take contrast readings at a certain frequency that is relevant for a given output size.
The eye has a contrast response and while it is true that color complicates things practice ALWAYS bears out a correct and relevant measurement. MTF happens to be one of them.
System MTF is a fine argument and one that I appreciate as valid but that's not what's being discussed here.
As far as your list goes there are many sharper lenses than those, but they only included those they tested. The Coastal Optics 60/4 APO is easily sharper than the vast majority of those lenses, for example, yet doesnt make the list. Neither does the 280/4 APO Telyt or the 135/2 APO Sonnar.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I absolutely take MTF seriously.
...for when I'm taking photos of MTF charts. Or maybe copying newspaper pages.
Otherwise, there's real life out there and the difference between the top 50 lenses out there cannot be seen without microscopic analysis. Then to what end? Yes, this thread is about which gear is best but still, the definition of what is best is still subjective according to what each user considers the best features of the lens.
Phil Forrest
...for when I'm taking photos of MTF charts. Or maybe copying newspaper pages.
Otherwise, there's real life out there and the difference between the top 50 lenses out there cannot be seen without microscopic analysis. Then to what end? Yes, this thread is about which gear is best but still, the definition of what is best is still subjective according to what each user considers the best features of the lens.
Phil Forrest
DominikDUK
Well-known
First Hasselblad constantly talks about their lenses and their expertise in lens making but in reality they know nothing about lens making so I take anything about lenses coming from them with a grain of salt.
Second the list I've posted is B.S. and there are many sharper lenses than those mentioned in the list.
Third no sharpness is not contrast contrast is perceived as sharpness by the humans visual system but is in fact not the same.
To quote a post from MFlenses forum
"Sharpness is a subjective, non-measurable description of human perception, which is based on the combination/interaction of two measurable objective optical properties:
- Resolvance (more correct term when referred to a lens) or Resolution: the quantity of information that a lens is able to read from a real subject. The higher the quantity of information that a lens can record from a given space, the higher it's Resolvance;
- Acutance or Micro-Contrast: the ability of a lens to make the difference between two small adjacent similar tones discernible. The neater the difference, the higher the lens' Acutance/Micro-Contrast."
The important thing is the subjective part, no lens is really a 100% sharp sharpness is a subjective perception and not reality.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Ummm, that seems a bit like playing with words, to me. I agree that it's to some degree subjective but in another sense, it's objective, otherwise your optician would have a hard time specifying a prescription for you.
I think it is the case that different measures of sharpness have been used over the years for different purposes, which does lead to confusion. As you say, resolution and acutance are components and I think that MTF is an attempt to unify them. I'm not entirely sure that LPM isn't as good a measure as we photographers need, unless we are doing something well out of the mainstream.
Microscopists and astronomers seem to use different measures as well but I think that might be a hare we don't wish to put in motion. 🙂
DominikDUK
Well-known
1. Yes it is a bit of word playing with the goal to show that sharpness is not everything (more an illusion like most things in photography) and most definetely not an absolute, that tells all there is to say about a lens' performance.
2. The optician uses a baseline/norm for sharpness but doesn't use real sharpness or perception thereof as measurement. If the optician would write a prescription for optimum sharpness instead of acceptable sharpness he would have to be much more precise than + 1; +0.5 or - 0.5 ;- 1 he would have to prescripe something like + 1.025518 or similiar instead he uses quarter steps at best.
3: I agree LPM is not the best measurement.
4. The whole lens testing in mag and websites often misses the real point optimum sharpness is the result of a system and not only of the lens. The optimum sharpness would be a result of absolutely wiggle free lens mount, followed by an absolutely level film/sensor plane (vacuum frame for film) etc... You can have the sharpest lens but if one of those thing is less than at it's optimum you loose some amount of sharpness. The whole thing is dependant not on a single manufacturer but on the quality of the individual setup. There is a reason why mp lenses are usally collimated for the camera they are being used on even Zeiss/Arri Master primes are collimated to the camera body they will be used on. (not always the case but should be done by a good rental house or owner).
In short we think too much about lens performance and too little about overall system performance.
2. The optician uses a baseline/norm for sharpness but doesn't use real sharpness or perception thereof as measurement. If the optician would write a prescription for optimum sharpness instead of acceptable sharpness he would have to be much more precise than + 1; +0.5 or - 0.5 ;- 1 he would have to prescripe something like + 1.025518 or similiar instead he uses quarter steps at best.
3: I agree LPM is not the best measurement.
4. The whole lens testing in mag and websites often misses the real point optimum sharpness is the result of a system and not only of the lens. The optimum sharpness would be a result of absolutely wiggle free lens mount, followed by an absolutely level film/sensor plane (vacuum frame for film) etc... You can have the sharpest lens but if one of those thing is less than at it's optimum you loose some amount of sharpness. The whole thing is dependant not on a single manufacturer but on the quality of the individual setup. There is a reason why mp lenses are usally collimated for the camera they are being used on even Zeiss/Arri Master primes are collimated to the camera body they will be used on. (not always the case but should be done by a good rental house or owner).
In short we think too much about lens performance and too little about overall system performance.
redisburning
Well-known
I mean I guess you can just ignore anything you don't like o well.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Nope I just prefer an unbiased source or at least a source that actually builds optics Hasselblad is neither. Regardin mfg I would trust Zeiss, Leitz and Olympus the others not so much. An unbiased source could be a university or any other serious research institute not a company but I guess objectivity is too much to ask.
redisburning
Well-known
in what world is an optical bench not unbiased I think ur delusional o well.
kxl
Social Documentary
farlymac
PF McFarland
Similar threads
- Article
