This is an absolutely meaningless comparison. It’s like driving two cars around the block and drawing sweeping conclusions about their performance. Among issues NOT addressed. 1) speed booster changes all optical parameters being compared. 2) a meaningful test would focus on a flat subject showing how accurately the plane of focus is held across the field. 3) a full frame camera would be needed to discern true edge performance. 4) other subtle considerations such as coma, flare, astigmatism, chromatic abberations and focus shift are not even addressed at all. Though arrived at by invalid means, I would opine as matt did, that the Planar is the better of these two choices.
Yes. First, the Minolta has anti-reflection coatings, like almost all lenses made in the last half century. I assume he meant "multi-coating", and I would be surprised if the Minolta didn't have that too, as nearly all 35mm SLR lenses made since the mid-1970s. Once you put optical formula altering adapters between the lens and the body, who knows what you are comparing.
I'm not sure it's a valid comparison when comparing speed-boosted vs non-speedboosted. I suspect the gap would be considerably less if both lenses were compared on an even playing field.
The one you should be using for comparison against the Zeiss is the older 50mm 1.4 MC Rokkor-X PG, which has a wider focus grip, smoother focus action, and made entirely of metal, (sans aperture lock button, and the mount ring is bare metal at the base.). I've tested my 50mm MC 1.4 against all the common MD Lenses, I also have a 50mm 1.7 MD, and while the plastic MD's made in the 80's are nice and light with a DSLR, they're no match for the vintage glass when it comes to detail, when stopped beyond f2.8. I wouldn't trade it for any of the newer Zeiss lenses either, it out-performs the Sony Zeiss lenses as well.
Bravo, Ed. Having one vintage lens for my Lumix G9, and that being the 50 MC rokkor, I am pretty surprised every time I use it, with the proof being the amount of "keeper" shots over those discarded, versus my other lenses.
When I got my MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm, a single look through the viewfinder was all I needed to know that it was going to be a favorite. Literally the first time I ever put the thing on my camera and began composing. ☆☆☆☆☆
Yes, a lot of misfocus on the "no fishing" signal with the minolta lens. Did you also notice how bad is the purple fringing on the zeiss for apertures up to f/2.8?
I would say nearly any f1.4-2.0 50mm (Double Gauss), once stopped down, would be nearly indistinguishable. The whole point is sharpness/contrast/oof areas WIDE OPEN that culls the goats from the Lions😉
Comparison of Metabones Zeiss vs "bare bones" minolta. I longer how is mentioned non-shalant, I'm using this adapter on this one, and this adapter on this one.
Comparison of characteristics should be done in the same condition. If this is not done, it is not a comparison but just a description in different condition. Sorry mate, I give a negative feedback.
In doing the exposure tests, why don't you go down on the shutter speed one stop as you stop down the aperture one stop. The image gets darker and the detail gets lost in the darkness the way you are doing these tests. Don't shoot moving objects though, to avoid motion blurred images.
What should I choose from lenses for portraits? Minolta MD 50 mm f / 1.4, Olympus OM-System Zuiko 50 mm f / 1.4 Auto-S, Super-Takumar 50 mm f / 1.4, Canon FD 50 mm f / 1.4?
I saw other video and Minolta MC PG 50mm f1.4 killed the Zeeis because this was looking awful with ligths out of control. Sadly this version isn't very sharp wide open at f1.4 but the Minolta MC PG is by far better.
Wrong test you add an additionnal non branded glass to the Minolta. It is like comparong two runers on a 100m and one has a wooden leg. Waisted time try again
Fast lens sound cool, untill you are out shooting and realise most of your shots are taken at f8 and above, so only time you need f1. 4 is crazy bokeh shots and in dim conditions.
I don't have a copy of the Pentax M 50mm f1.4 but it's definitely on my radar. I'll do a review and comparison once I get my hands on one. How do you like it so far?
All BS jus to glorify German lenses. Japanese cameras and lenses are excellent. latest generation of SIGMA lenses are making totally irrelevant the last shred of Teutonic mythology. AT HALF THE PRICE BTW!
This is an absolutely meaningless comparison. It’s like driving two cars around the block and drawing sweeping conclusions about their performance. Among issues NOT addressed. 1) speed booster changes all optical parameters being compared. 2) a meaningful test would focus on a flat subject showing how accurately the plane of focus is held across the field. 3) a full frame camera would be needed to discern true edge performance. 4) other subtle considerations such as coma, flare, astigmatism, chromatic abberations and focus shift are not even addressed at all. Though arrived at by invalid means, I would opine as matt did, that the Planar is the better of these two choices.
Yes. First, the Minolta has anti-reflection coatings, like almost all lenses made in the last half century. I assume he meant "multi-coating", and I would be surprised if the Minolta didn't have that too, as nearly all 35mm SLR lenses made since the mid-1970s. Once you put optical formula altering adapters between the lens and the body, who knows what you are comparing.
Can't people that criticize reviews find another analogy than cars? jajaja
I'm not sure it's a valid comparison when comparing speed-boosted vs non-speedboosted. I suspect the gap would be considerably less if both lenses were compared on an even playing field.
'Adds speedbooster to one of the lenses'
Might as well throw the entire comparison in the trash now...
let's compare lenses, bUt uSe a mEtAbOnEs aDaPtEr on OnE
The one you should be using for comparison against the Zeiss is the older 50mm 1.4 MC Rokkor-X PG, which has a wider focus grip, smoother focus action, and made entirely of metal, (sans aperture lock button, and the mount ring is bare metal at the base.). I've tested my 50mm MC 1.4 against all the common MD Lenses, I also have a 50mm 1.7 MD, and while the plastic MD's made in the 80's are nice and light with a DSLR, they're no match for the vintage glass when it comes to detail, when stopped beyond f2.8. I wouldn't trade it for any of the newer Zeiss lenses either, it out-performs the Sony Zeiss lenses as well.
Bravo, Ed. Having one vintage lens for my Lumix G9, and that being the 50 MC rokkor, I am pretty surprised every time I use it, with the proof being the amount of "keeper" shots over those discarded, versus my other lenses.
When I got my MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm, a single look through the viewfinder was all I needed to know that it was going to be a favorite. Literally the first time I ever put the thing on my camera and began composing.
☆☆☆☆☆
I wouldn't test full frame lenses on micro 4/3 camera, especially with speed booster or adapter with glass.
Yeah, i would buy a cheap A7 an do Full Frame Test
You completely missed the focus at f1.4 and f2.0 with the minolta :D
Yes, a lot of misfocus on the "no fishing" signal with the minolta lens. Did you also notice how bad is the purple fringing on the zeiss for apertures up to f/2.8?
@@DL-jz1bm i think its on the speedbooster...
@@ariegt the speed booster also fcked the MD
I would say nearly any f1.4-2.0 50mm (Double Gauss), once stopped down, would be nearly indistinguishable. The whole point is sharpness/contrast/oof areas WIDE OPEN that culls the goats from the Lions😉
Same with the Minolta 50mm 1.4 autofocus lens. Almost unusable below 2.8 but damn it comes alive above!
Excellent critique!!! I’m a new sub 👍
Comparison of Metabones Zeiss vs "bare bones" minolta. I longer how is mentioned non-shalant, I'm using this adapter on this one, and this adapter on this one.
Exellent comparison between a lens with speed booster and a lens without.
Comparison of characteristics should be done in the same condition. If this is not done, it is not a comparison but just a description in different condition. Sorry mate, I give a negative feedback.
In doing the exposure tests, why don't you go down on the shutter speed one stop as you stop down the aperture one stop. The image gets darker and the detail gets lost in the darkness the way you are doing these tests. Don't shoot moving objects though, to avoid motion blurred images.
Nice competetion.
As always, another awesome adapted lenses comparison video. Thank you!
Thanks for watching! I'll keep them coming.
What should I choose from lenses for portraits? Minolta MD 50 mm f / 1.4, Olympus OM-System Zuiko 50 mm f / 1.4 Auto-S, Super-Takumar 50 mm f / 1.4, Canon FD 50 mm f / 1.4?
Where do all those thumbsup come from? Such a waste of time :-(
Hi Matt! Thank you. How does the Zeiss MEs compare to their Contax counterparts with Contax/Yashica mount?
It's exactly the same, aside from the number of aperture blades (6 vs 9)
I saw other video and Minolta MC PG 50mm f1.4 killed the Zeeis because this was looking awful with ligths out of control. Sadly this version isn't very sharp wide open at f1.4 but the Minolta MC PG is by far better.
There you go, Wilson. Having the 50 MC also, I agree 100% with you.
And the MD III is even better than the Pg...
is that Norfolk ??
Wrong test you add an additionnal non branded glass to the Minolta. It is like comparong two runers on a 100m and one has a wooden leg. Waisted time try again
Fast lens sound cool, untill you are out shooting and realise most of your shots are taken at f8 and above, so only time you need f1. 4 is crazy bokeh shots and in dim conditions.
According to TheAngryPhotographer, that lens is radioactive.
Do you have Pentax M 50mm f1. 4? I recently bought one. If you have it can you compare Pentax and Minolta?
I don't have a copy of the Pentax M 50mm f1.4 but it's definitely on my radar. I'll do a review and comparison once I get my hands on one. How do you like it so far?
Oh i slapped a 3rd party adapter on to in and i'm going to review the lens! Plus i'm using an entry level body! Bull shit.
Testing on m 3/4 is only comparing crops.
My guess is Fotasy is pronounced accenting the Fo, not the tas.
It’s pronounced “tee star,” not just “tee.” T* was Zeiss’s name for its proprietary multicoating..
Does anyone know how the Zeiss ZE compares to a Zeiss ZM?
i payd 150.- for my Zeiss Planar T
Glückspilz
Mmmmmm fake?
Tengo un Minolta f1.4 y en f2.0 no genera la bruma que en este video se muestra, y lo digo porque lo uso a diario. 🤔
Speed booster ruins optical performance
This comparison has very little meaning
the man has really no idea what he is talking about... "no coating on the MD-Rokkor".....
All BS jus to glorify German lenses. Japanese cameras and lenses are excellent. latest generation of SIGMA lenses are making totally irrelevant the last shred of Teutonic mythology. AT HALF THE PRICE BTW!
you get what you pay for.
on othere sensless video. It is funny to me to see how people who are not competent they pretend to act as experts!!
Bo - keh not Bo kuh!!!