$20 Minolta 1.7/55 from 1968 vs $1000 Zeiss 1.8/55 from 2013

[Phillip Reeve]

Hi Folks,

thought you might find this comparison interesting: Minolta MC 1.7/55 vs. Zeiss 1.8/55

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I was surprised how similar both lenses performed at f/8 were i see no relevant difference. At f/1.7 there is of course a big difference between both lenses, especially outside of the center

 

 

 

 

[Guest all8]

Is it worth while seeing the images with default RAW to JPG conversion as well? Or were they more or less the same at that point too?

[Phillip Reeve]

Is it worth while seeing the images with default RAW to JPG conversion as well? Or were they more or less the same at that point too?

At f/8 they look pretty much the same. At f/1.7 there is a difference, just like in the images processed with the same settings. I was more interested in my final result so I used processed images for this comparison

[howasparty]

Could not believe how small the difference is. I've only got the 50 1.4 and the 58 1.2. Would be interesting to have a comparison from one of them too.

Thanks!

[ericwestpheling]

Great example of the fact that old glass is still great glass, and that shooting an f8 even on some of the most mediocre glass will make a fine 8x10" print for most purposes.

 

It always makes me shake my head when people agonize over which lens is sharpest and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when a beaten up Minolta/Pentax/Olympus/Nikkor would produce excellent images at the 4x6 or 8x10 print people end up making. 

 

Yes, if you plan on making 24x36" enlargements with maximum resolution you might want to look at the expensive glass...but aesthetics and taste are very personal, soft focus is still focus, and as long as the texture of the image is sharp (add some film grain effect) a viewer will not feel like a lack of ultimate crisp resolution is a defect.

 

Even the f1.8 shots for this motif at the sizes you are showing have a pretty minimal difference. Yes there is the sharpness and color purity from the Zeiss, but you can get almost the same effect from a $150 Contax Planar 50mm f1.7.

 

I would want to see this comparison with the $50 Minolta 58mm 1.4, but thats my $.02 and Phillip may not have one lying around. It has all the magical rendering of the legendary Minolta 58mm 1.2 but 10% of the price.

 

In the end its really about the overall visual impression, which is a very difficult thing describe in a review. Even seeing it requires a level of understanding about ones own aesthetic preferences that most casual photographers don't have yet.

 

My two 50mm I keep around are the ZM 50mm Sonnar 1.5, and the Minolta 58mm 1.2. Both legends for their unique look, not for their test chart performances. If I need sharp corners I'll break out the Contax 35-70mm zoom and stop down to f8.

 

It is such a great time to be a photographer. I have to thank Sony for giving us the A7/E-mount and all the fun it lets us have with old glass.

[Phillip Reeve]

ouch, I forgot the link for the full article in the post above, here it is:

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/test-20-minolta-mc-1-755-vs-1000-zeiss-1-855/

[Phillip Reeve]

Great example of the fact that old glass is still great glass, and that shooting an f8 even on some of the most mediocre glass will make a fine 8x10" print for most purposes.

 

It always makes me shake my head when people agonize over which lens is sharpest and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when a beaten up Minolta/Pentax/Olympus/Nikkor would produce excellent images at the 4x6 or 8x10 print people end up making. 

 

Yes, if you plan on making 24x36" enlargements with maximum resolution you might want to look at the expensive glass...but aesthetics and taste are very personal, soft focus is still focus, and as long as the texture of the image is sharp (add some film grain effect) a viewer will not feel like a lack of ultimate crisp resolution is a defect.

 

Even the f1.8 shots for this motif at the sizes you are showing have a pretty minimal difference. Yes there is the sharpness and color purity from the Zeiss, but you can get almost the same effect from a $150 Contax Planar 50mm f1.7.

 

I would want to see this comparison with the $50 Minolta 58mm 1.4, but thats my $.02 and Phillip may not have one lying around. It has all the magical rendering of the legendary Minolta 58mm 1.2 but 10% of the price.

 

In the end its really about the overall visual impression, which is a very difficult thing describe in a review. Even seeing it requires a level of understanding about ones own aesthetic preferences that most casual photographers don't have yet.

 

My two 50mm I keep around are the ZM 50mm Sonnar 1.5, and the Minolta 58mm 1.2. Both legends for their unique look, not for their test chart performances. If I need sharp corners I'll break out the Contax 35-70mm zoom and stop down to f8.

 

It is such a great time to be a photographer. I have to thank Sony for giving us the A7/E-mount and all the fun it lets us have with old glass.

I have the 1.4/58 (both version) and 1.2/58 but chose to go with the 55 because it made the comparison easier. I like the 1.7/55 because it is not as soft as the 1.4 or 1.2 at their widest aperturenor is the bokeh as busy. I made the first test with the 1.2/58 as well and it performed not that different