I was wondering "What is David doing? More than 7 days no video". Like kids quiet for a long time... something big is on the way. ‘Chunk’ of the mirror popping up and here is this amazing surprise!
:D I've been underwater with non-TH-cam stuff, mostly my second and third novels, but for YT I'm also getting the 2024 content in process. I used to be about six months out on videos (uploaded and scheduled) but right now I still have two more videos to make for release this month (the Acros II All About Film and a video on how to fix sheet film holders with light leaks.)
Incredibly helpful review! It's nice to see this level of comparison between the lenses. Thanks for taking the time to put this video together. Cheers!
I really enjoyed this video a lot, and can only imagine the amount of work that went into the making of it. I used to buy and resell a bit of gear, and did some lens testing just for fun. Not nearly as methodically as you. I clearly remember the sharpest 28/3.5 lens I ever tested was a Minolta, it was absolutely shocking. Unfortunately, I never did enjoy Minolta cameras.
Thank you and this was also a fun video to make. It was my second showdown video and I'm planning the next one for February or March. It's going to be a 50mm f/1.4 showdown with 12 or 13 lenses. I just need the cold to break long enough to get the last photos for it.
You know, it's videos like this one that make me weirdly proud of my past self for - by mere chance, mind you - getting started with Pentax gear when I got into film photography last year. Working with my Spotmatic F and ES II and a large range of Takumars (though I lack some glass in the coveted department of portrait focal lengths) has been an absolute blast. Anyway, thanks for the video, David!
Thank you! I started on Pentax, too, and I'm always glad to see the Pentax lenses out-perform the competition. I do try to be very mindful of that, though, and make as many of the ratings as possible objective.
Great video! One problem I have found when using the 28mm f/3.5 Non-Ai Nikkor with a 35mm camera is that there is vignetting when using a single, common sized filter. I have also used the Pentax, Canon and Minolta counterparts, and they did not suffer from this problem.
Back in the 60’s 70’s when we were using these lenses . There weren’t TH-cam vids to watch to do comparisons. We read photographic literature with grainy images on the pages and hard to understand technical data . a Nikon guy my entire life, but since switched to Pentax on my digital
Thank you, Richard! This is turning into a whole series now, too. I just released one on modern 28mm f/2.8 lenses and have a June 24 release scheduled for vintage Olympus Zuiko 28mm lenses (the f/2.0, f/2.8, and f/3.5.) Later this year I'll have a big 50mm f/1.4 comparison video, too. These are fun to make.
Super great video!!! one of my favourite is the nikkor 28mm 3.5 ais that has the same number of element of yours but the lens design has been changed (maybe a more modern similar to the E series) and has short focus throw
Thank you and yeah, the Nikon has a lovely image character. Technical tests are neat, but if a lens creates captivating photos, the technical performance is secondary
Thank you David, great review. I also really like using the Zuiko 28mm f3.5 Lens on a OM4 with Oly. filters and TMAX in D76. What a great system the OM series was, they got it right and it didn't need much improvement. Today we have planned obsolescence.
Absolutely concur. I have had so many of the plastic Canon and Nikon AF 50mm lenses come into my hands with cracked housings and focus or aperture rings or failed motors. And old lens like these ,aside from oily blades (usually an easy fix) or some problems with the optics (like fungus, which can also be fixed sometimes), these keep on chugging.
Totally agree on OM quality but even in our modern era, OM quality remained the same (and I don't think the shift from Olympus Camera to OM-System will change anything). I am using Spotmatic and Takumar on film but I do shoot with Olympus on digital camera (E-M5 Mk II). I have a 60/2.8 macro, a 12-50 3.5-6.3 kit lens (with built-in clinking ring for manual AND electronic zoom PLUS a macro position PLUS tropicalisation for 150€ !!), a 14-150 4-5.6 and a 45/1.8. After 4 years on the Carribean islands with heat, 80% humidity min and several heavy sudden rain, the camera and all the lenses work perfectly well ! Only the 45 has a slight beginning of fungi but due to poor storage conditions (the only one that's not tropicalised). Quality of the kit zoom lenses (taking into account their initial price) is really good, the macro is just exceptional and the 45 may be the best quality/price ratio of digital camera nowadays (150€ in mint condition). However I hardly regret the over presence of plastic components nowadays and the huge gap when your want the more premium ones in metal :/
For some reason people consistently under-value Pentax when in fact they made some of the best optics of the film era. They are tied with Zeiss as my favourite manufacturer. Never seen the need to even consider Canon or Nikon who made a lot of crap and coasted on their brand recognition. Though of course they too made some fine lenses, they were simply not as dependable as Pentax.
Absolutely yes. Brand perception is often tied to marketing quality and Pentax has never had a good marketing effort or budget, well, not since the mid-sixties anyway. They had some good marketing for some Spotmatics. Asahi seemed to be focused on building great gear for people who find it, and that seems to have carried through to today.
I guess a lot of work went into this video, but unfortunately it's very difficult to read the text over the photos. especially if you watch the video on your phone. it's a shame. Anyway! keep up the good work!
Thank you and yeah, that's likely to be an issue. It's going to be hard to figure out a way to balance readability on both desktop and mobile, but I'll see what I can do.
Great Showdown, Incredibly helpful in narrowing down to the Pentax K 35mm for me By any chance, do you happen to know if the SMC Pentax K 35mm f3.5 is radioactive?
Fortunately, I had a similar question on a different lens the other day, so I'm just going to copy and paste my response to that below: I do not, but lens radiation is a non-issue unless you hold the back of the lens up against your body for years on end, and if you don't have any skin where you hold the lens because skin stops alpha particles. Thorium dioxide is the thorium compound in lenses and thorium dioxide decay emits alpha particles. Alpha particles can be stopped by about 6mm of air, a sheet of paper, or skin, as a few examples. So the lenses emit radiation, yes, but you're more likely to have harmful radiation effects if you have ever had a dental x-ray, ever stood near a large granite block, or have been exposed to the sun for a few minutes at any point in your life. If you do want the alpha particles emitted by thorium to cause you harm, you'll need to eat a radioactive camera lens and have a persistent stomach ulcer. That, given some time, could lead to some detrimental health effects. Here are a couple of good sources on radiation types: www.co.monmouth.nj.us/documents/118/RADIATION%20HEALTH%20BASICS.pdf www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-basics www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-thorium
Thanks for the excellent comparison video. I own and use the following 28mm lenses: Asahi 28mm f/3.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 pre-AIS Nikkor 28mm f/4 PC Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF 2 I have performed comparison tests on mine but not as extensive as yours. You did a great job.
Thank you very much! That's a great list of lenses, too. This comparison is part of a whole series, too. Later this month a comparison for the Olympus 28mm 2, 2.8, and 3.5 arrives and in a couple months a massive 12-lens 50mm f/1.4 comparison will go out. I'm shooting to do a similar comparison every other month.
awesome video - thank you. may i offer a can of worms as reward? I have watched and enjoyed many lens comparison videos and would like to get your perspective on a certain aspect of them. why wouldn't you use the minimum focus distance for each lens as is? you state that since the Canon has a longer MFD than the others, it wouldn't be 'fair' to the Canon to compare them. I would argue that what's not fair is handicapping all the other lenses for one outlier especially considering they all have the same minimum aperture. If i were into (and I am) 'the out of focus areas' of vintage lenses (aka - character) using the MFD of each lens as it stands would be quite useful especially during a comparison test. Same goes with testing out to f22. only as an example for my argument, you did not throw out the sun stars test because one lens has less aperture blades than the others. The Nikon won this test on its own merits. its your show, do as you please. this particular issue is something i see in a lot of videos. you are the only one i trust to give it to me straight or crooked if that's how it is. thanks again!
Fair questions across the board and also ones I asked myself and thought about going into the format. I'm happy to share my thinking on them: - minimum focal distance. Concur, it's not perfectly fair to the five with a closer focal point to hold them to the furthest minimum. The tradeoff is that it allows even comparison of the lenses at the shortest maximum magnification. I don't think that the performance difference on the five non-Canon lenses at 0.3m would have been materially different than 0.4m and the benefit of comparing them all at the same point is it allows even comparison of AoV at that point across the sample set. But it would be worth considering some approach the looks at both points because I see and understand the case. It'll be next year before I release another of these, so I have some time to ponder. - aperture blades. I see your point here, too, but I think that source-point stars are an aspect of image character that a lot of lens makers ignored for too long (and, honestly, many or most still do.) So to me, comparing that is a way to highlight which makers gave that aspect of the lens' design more thought. It's not as simple as the number of aperture blades, either. The shape of the blades and the angle and shape of the points where they meet affect how diffraction stars form (evidenced here by how how differently the ones other than the Nikon and Pentax performed with the six aperture blades each.) I forget which Pentax Limited lens it is, the 70mm f/2.4 maybe, but the older lenses had MUCH nicer aperture stars than does the current version because of the different aperture leaf shape. As always, good questions and points and I appreciate it when I have ask myself if my approach is correct.
Very interesting! This has me wondering how these compare to my only vintage 28mm - a Rokinon "Five Star" f/2.8. I purchased it used back in the late '80s. It's in fantastic condition (which does help!). It got almost no use back in the day, but I pulled it out when I bought my mirrorless. It's got a lot of vignetting wide open, but I've been getting some absolutely lovely pictures. The more I use it, the happier I get with it.
Very nice! I tend to think that old lenses with a lot of character are great for taking nice and captivating images, not so great for photographing test dots. :D
Thank you I really love the 28mm focal length. I like that you keep the aperture range close. I am lucky enough to own a Konica 28mm f1.8 . It really is a solid performer but I have the 28mm Hector and that cheap lenses would make the canon shine. Thank you again for your content
I recently got a nice little OM kit, and being a primarily Nikon shooter, the OM is a nice breath of fresh air. I too was astonished at how the 28/3.5 performed, even the 50/3.5 macro is a very nice lens. I almost got a 100/2.8 a couple of days ago, but it got away from me... If you get the chance, try the 100/2.8 it's a really nice portrait lens.
i collect lenses and am currently lusting after the zuiko 100mm f2. everything i've read suggests its worth it. I have the 2.8 but if sharpness was all i cared about i'd stick to my modern glass. have you had the opportunity to shoot both? if so, thoughts?
@@seoulrydr I haven't unfortunately, however the 100mm 2.8 has a very nice character, it's plenty sharp for me, not clinically sharp. I might even say that it's similar to 105/2.5 Nikon, not too sharp, to the point that it's unpleasant, but plenty enough for portraits, and has a very nice, gentle rendering.
I have to agree, the optical qualities of the Olympus lenses are good but not my favorite. BUT. When I get my digital camera out for any serious shooting, I always bring my Olympus Prime trinity: 28 f/2, 50 f/1.4, and 100 f/2.8. They have the best ergonomics and usability so when I need to take photos and not think about the lens, Olympus wins for me.
I do love Olympus ergonomics. The only of those lenses I have is the 50mm 1.4 and it seems good. I should probably do one of these for 80s 50mm 1.4 lenses.
this is EXACTLY what we're lookin for. more showdowns pls!
Thank you!
I was wondering "What is David doing? More than 7 days no video". Like kids quiet for a long time... something big is on the way. ‘Chunk’ of the mirror popping up and here is this amazing surprise!
:D I've been underwater with non-TH-cam stuff, mostly my second and third novels, but for YT I'm also getting the 2024 content in process. I used to be about six months out on videos (uploaded and scheduled) but right now I still have two more videos to make for release this month (the Acros II All About Film and a video on how to fix sheet film holders with light leaks.)
Looking forward to the acros II video! @@DavidHancock
Incredibly helpful review! It's nice to see this level of comparison between the lenses. Thanks for taking the time to put this video together. Cheers!
Thank you!
I really enjoyed this video a lot, and can only imagine the amount of work that went into the making of it. I used to buy and resell a bit of gear, and did some lens testing just for fun. Not nearly as methodically as you. I clearly remember the sharpest 28/3.5 lens I ever tested was a Minolta, it was absolutely shocking. Unfortunately, I never did enjoy Minolta cameras.
Thank you and this was also a fun video to make. It was my second showdown video and I'm planning the next one for February or March. It's going to be a 50mm f/1.4 showdown with 12 or 13 lenses. I just need the cold to break long enough to get the last photos for it.
Only the "Professor could pull this off, well done David!
Thank you, Randy!
You know, it's videos like this one that make me weirdly proud of my past self for - by mere chance, mind you - getting started with Pentax gear when I got into film photography last year. Working with my Spotmatic F and ES II and a large range of Takumars (though I lack some glass in the coveted department of portrait focal lengths) has been an absolute blast. Anyway, thanks for the video, David!
Thank you! I started on Pentax, too, and I'm always glad to see the Pentax lenses out-perform the competition. I do try to be very mindful of that, though, and make as many of the ratings as possible objective.
Great video! One problem I have found when using the 28mm f/3.5 Non-Ai Nikkor with a 35mm camera is that there is vignetting when using a single, common sized filter. I have also used the Pentax, Canon and Minolta counterparts, and they did not suffer from this problem.
That's a good point. That lens does need a slip filter or a step-up ring to a large filter.
Back in the 60’s 70’s when we were using these lenses . There weren’t TH-cam vids to watch to do comparisons. We read photographic literature with grainy images on the pages and hard to understand technical data . a Nikon guy my entire life, but since switched to Pentax on my digital
Very very good presentation. Thank you for that effort and time.
RS. Canada
Thank you, Richard! This is turning into a whole series now, too. I just released one on modern 28mm f/2.8 lenses and have a June 24 release scheduled for vintage Olympus Zuiko 28mm lenses (the f/2.0, f/2.8, and f/3.5.) Later this year I'll have a big 50mm f/1.4 comparison video, too. These are fun to make.
I appreciate this entertaining, educational video. Great fun too.
RS. Canada
Super great video!!! one of my favourite is the nikkor 28mm 3.5 ais that has the same number of element of yours but the lens design has been changed (maybe a more modern similar to the E series) and has short focus throw
Thank you and yeah, the Nikon has a lovely image character. Technical tests are neat, but if a lens creates captivating photos, the technical performance is secondary
Thank you David, great review. I also really like using the Zuiko 28mm f3.5 Lens on a OM4 with Oly. filters and TMAX in D76.
What a great system the OM series was, they got it right and it didn't need much improvement.
Today we have planned obsolescence.
Absolutely concur. I have had so many of the plastic Canon and Nikon AF 50mm lenses come into my hands with cracked housings and focus or aperture rings or failed motors. And old lens like these ,aside from oily blades (usually an easy fix) or some problems with the optics (like fungus, which can also be fixed sometimes), these keep on chugging.
Totally agree on OM quality but even in our modern era, OM quality remained the same (and I don't think the shift from Olympus Camera to OM-System will change anything).
I am using Spotmatic and Takumar on film but I do shoot with Olympus on digital camera (E-M5 Mk II). I have a 60/2.8 macro, a 12-50 3.5-6.3 kit lens (with built-in clinking ring for manual AND electronic zoom PLUS a macro position PLUS tropicalisation for 150€ !!), a 14-150 4-5.6 and a 45/1.8. After 4 years on the Carribean islands with heat, 80% humidity min and several heavy sudden rain, the camera and all the lenses work perfectly well ! Only the 45 has a slight beginning of fungi but due to poor storage conditions (the only one that's not tropicalised). Quality of the kit zoom lenses (taking into account their initial price) is really good, the macro is just exceptional and the 45 may be the best quality/price ratio of digital camera nowadays (150€ in mint condition). However I hardly regret the over presence of plastic components nowadays and the huge gap when your want the more premium ones in metal :/
For some reason people consistently under-value Pentax when in fact they made some of the best optics of the film era. They are tied with Zeiss as my favourite manufacturer. Never seen the need to even consider Canon or Nikon who made a lot of crap and coasted on their brand recognition. Though of course they too made some fine lenses, they were simply not as dependable as Pentax.
Absolutely yes. Brand perception is often tied to marketing quality and Pentax has never had a good marketing effort or budget, well, not since the mid-sixties anyway. They had some good marketing for some Spotmatics. Asahi seemed to be focused on building great gear for people who find it, and that seems to have carried through to today.
I guess a lot of work went into this video, but unfortunately it's very difficult to read the text over the photos. especially if you watch the video on your phone. it's a shame. Anyway! keep up the good work!
Thank you and yeah, that's likely to be an issue. It's going to be hard to figure out a way to balance readability on both desktop and mobile, but I'll see what I can do.
Great Showdown, Incredibly helpful in narrowing down to the Pentax K 35mm for me
By any chance, do you happen to know if the SMC Pentax K 35mm f3.5 is radioactive?
Fortunately, I had a similar question on a different lens the other day, so I'm just going to copy and paste my response to that below:
I do not, but lens radiation is a non-issue unless you hold the back of the lens up against your body for years on end, and if you don't have any skin where you hold the lens because skin stops alpha particles. Thorium dioxide is the thorium compound in lenses and thorium dioxide decay emits alpha particles. Alpha particles can be stopped by about 6mm of air, a sheet of paper, or skin, as a few examples. So the lenses emit radiation, yes, but you're more likely to have harmful radiation effects if you have ever had a dental x-ray, ever stood near a large granite block, or have been exposed to the sun for a few minutes at any point in your life. If you do want the alpha particles emitted by thorium to cause you harm, you'll need to eat a radioactive camera lens and have a persistent stomach ulcer. That, given some time, could lead to some detrimental health effects.
Here are a couple of good sources on radiation types:
www.co.monmouth.nj.us/documents/118/RADIATION%20HEALTH%20BASICS.pdf
www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-basics
www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-thorium
Thanks for the excellent comparison video.
I own and use the following 28mm lenses:
Asahi 28mm f/3.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar
Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS
Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 pre-AIS
Nikkor 28mm f/4 PC
Vivitar 28mm f/2.5
Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon
Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF 2
I have performed comparison tests on mine but not as extensive as yours. You did a great job.
Thank you very much! That's a great list of lenses, too. This comparison is part of a whole series, too. Later this month a comparison for the Olympus 28mm 2, 2.8, and 3.5 arrives and in a couple months a massive 12-lens 50mm f/1.4 comparison will go out. I'm shooting to do a similar comparison every other month.
@@DavidHancock
Thanks for the info.
I looked at your video library and was very impressed. I will subscribe.
awesome video - thank you. may i offer a can of worms as reward? I have watched and enjoyed many lens comparison videos and would like to get your perspective on a certain aspect of them. why wouldn't you use the minimum focus distance for each lens as is? you state that since the Canon has a longer MFD than the others, it wouldn't be 'fair' to the Canon to compare them. I would argue that what's not fair is handicapping all the other lenses for one outlier especially considering they all have the same minimum aperture. If i were into (and I am) 'the out of focus areas' of vintage lenses (aka - character) using the MFD of each lens as it stands would be quite useful especially during a comparison test. Same goes with testing out to f22. only as an example for my argument, you did not throw out the sun stars test because one lens has less aperture blades than the others. The Nikon won this test on its own merits.
its your show, do as you please. this particular issue is something i see in a lot of videos. you are the only one i trust to give it to me straight or crooked if that's how it is. thanks again!
Fair questions across the board and also ones I asked myself and thought about going into the format. I'm happy to share my thinking on them:
- minimum focal distance. Concur, it's not perfectly fair to the five with a closer focal point to hold them to the furthest minimum. The tradeoff is that it allows even comparison of the lenses at the shortest maximum magnification. I don't think that the performance difference on the five non-Canon lenses at 0.3m would have been materially different than 0.4m and the benefit of comparing them all at the same point is it allows even comparison of AoV at that point across the sample set. But it would be worth considering some approach the looks at both points because I see and understand the case. It'll be next year before I release another of these, so I have some time to ponder.
- aperture blades. I see your point here, too, but I think that source-point stars are an aspect of image character that a lot of lens makers ignored for too long (and, honestly, many or most still do.) So to me, comparing that is a way to highlight which makers gave that aspect of the lens' design more thought. It's not as simple as the number of aperture blades, either. The shape of the blades and the angle and shape of the points where they meet affect how diffraction stars form (evidenced here by how how differently the ones other than the Nikon and Pentax performed with the six aperture blades each.) I forget which Pentax Limited lens it is, the 70mm f/2.4 maybe, but the older lenses had MUCH nicer aperture stars than does the current version because of the different aperture leaf shape.
As always, good questions and points and I appreciate it when I have ask myself if my approach is correct.
Very interesting! This has me wondering how these compare to my only vintage 28mm - a Rokinon "Five Star" f/2.8. I purchased it used back in the late '80s. It's in fantastic condition (which does help!). It got almost no use back in the day, but I pulled it out when I bought my mirrorless. It's got a lot of vignetting wide open, but I've been getting some absolutely lovely pictures. The more I use it, the happier I get with it.
Very nice! I tend to think that old lenses with a lot of character are great for taking nice and captivating images, not so great for photographing test dots. :D
Thank you I really love the 28mm focal length. I like that you keep the aperture range close. I am lucky enough to own a Konica 28mm f1.8 . It really is a solid performer but I have the 28mm Hector and that cheap lenses would make the canon shine. Thank you again for your content
Thank you! I honestly had not heard of the Konda 28mm 1.8. That looks like quite the unique lens.
I recently got a nice little OM kit, and being a primarily Nikon shooter, the OM is a nice breath of fresh air. I too was astonished at how the 28/3.5 performed, even the 50/3.5 macro is a very nice lens. I almost got a 100/2.8 a couple of days ago, but it got away from me... If you get the chance, try the 100/2.8 it's a really nice portrait lens.
i collect lenses and am currently lusting after the zuiko 100mm f2. everything i've read suggests its worth it. I have the 2.8 but if sharpness was all i cared about i'd stick to my modern glass. have you had the opportunity to shoot both? if so, thoughts?
I do love a good 100mm f/2.8. I have been eyeballing that focal length and speed lately.
@@seoulrydr I haven't unfortunately, however the 100mm 2.8 has a very nice character, it's plenty sharp for me, not clinically sharp. I might even say that it's similar to 105/2.5 Nikon, not too sharp, to the point that it's unpleasant, but plenty enough for portraits, and has a very nice, gentle rendering.
David
I have the Pentax 28mm2.8 M manuel focus 😊 lens . I like and collect the Pentax M lenses. My widest Takumar is the 35mm3.5 lenses
Nice!
I was going to buy a Pentax 28mm f3.5 when low and behold I found that I already own the A 28mm f2.8 ! I’m good 🙂
That 2.8 is a great lens.
It’s a different lens though.
Thank you
@@shutterczj Thank you!
The Pentax is great indeed.
Definitely yes.
I have to agree, the optical qualities of the Olympus lenses are good but not my favorite. BUT. When I get my digital camera out for any serious shooting, I always bring my Olympus Prime trinity: 28 f/2, 50 f/1.4, and 100 f/2.8. They have the best ergonomics and usability so when I need to take photos and not think about the lens, Olympus wins for me.
I do love Olympus ergonomics. The only of those lenses I have is the 50mm 1.4 and it seems good. I should probably do one of these for 80s 50mm 1.4 lenses.
@@DavidHancock I can only image the work that goes into videos like this but I would love to see a similar video with some 1.4’s!
Whoosh, yeah, because there are about ten that I'd like to put up against each other.