Standard lenses Compared; Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, Minolta 50mm and 45mm MC and MD

<p>This is a follow up to the previous standard lenses comparisons.</p>

<p>Minolta lenses (manual focus) showed consistent superiority and focusing accuracy to the Canon lenses (Auto Focus).</p>

<p>Canon lenses were used on an Elan 7n and Minolta lenses on a Minolta XD11.<br>

All shots were performed on the same roll of Tmax and scanned on a Coolscan 9000 with a glass holder.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>How do the Canon lenses perform using manual focus?</p>

<p>I will post 100% links shortly.</p>

<p>Kenneth, you cannot focus Canon lenses manually accurately (there is not a split screen in the current cameras or any aid to allow you to focus).</p>

<p>Also the current Canon lenses are not compatible with classic manual focus bodies.</p>

<p>While, we appreciate any tests that anyone takes the time and effort to do and post on PN, it would be helpful to know if the differences in performance is related to the lens or the focusing system.</p>

<p>I agree. In this test I left the modeling lights set to max power to help the focusing and try to concentrate on just the optics but the results on focusing (from Canon)were still hit or miss. Wide open the Minolta lenses are tack sharp which I know by extensive experience the Canon's are not.</p>

<p>Trying to post the 100% crops for you but my Smugmug seems to be down.</p>

<p>Since my page seems to be down, I'll post the 100% center crops vertically. Here you go:</p>

<p>1</p><div></div>

<p>2</p><div></div>

<p>3</p><div></div>

<p>4</p><div></div>

<p>5</p><div></div>

<p>6</p><div></div>

<p>7</p><div></div>

<p>8</p>

<p>Last</p><div></div>

<p>The Minolta optics are not only superb wide open but also benefit from the accurracy of manual focus.</p>

<p>I don't know how you can exactly distinguish between f/1.8 and f/2 with the Canon f/1.8 lens. I have one 50/1.8 New FD and many earlier 50/1.8 Canon lenses from the earliest FL to the last FD SC. Not one of these lenses has an f/2 marking. The results from the Canon lenses don't look like anything I have ever seen from them. My Canon f/1.4 standard lenses include three FL II models, a chrome front FD, two FD SSCs and two New FDs. They are all good. It would be better to use the manual focus body which works with each lens mount so focusing can be easier. Finally I would say that you need a much sharper film than TMX for such a test. TP is good for this and if your supply of TP is gone then Imakelink HQ will also do.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>TMAX resolves much more detail than the 21 megapixels scan from the Coolscan 9000. Not sure what your comment meant. At f8 I can see at least twice as much detail on the film than the scanner can capture.</p>

<p>The limiting factor on the Canon lenses is the less than perfect autofocus and the poor performance wide open.</p>

<p>It is a shame that current cameras don't sponsor a split screen for manual focusing.</p>

<p>Even the 21MP from the Coolscan clearly show the shortcomings of the Canon lenses tested (particularly in autofocus). All the Minolta lenses perform flawlessly - even wide open. The difference is large and substantial.</p>

<p>I may try to send the film to get scanned at 8000dpi to display the difference in optics at the sharper apertures.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>The Canon lenses tested here are EF lenses, not FD, hence you can accurately set them at f2 on the camera.</p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>Personally, I think the major issue here is focusing. For example, the image from the Canon f1.8 lens at f4 is clearly out of focus. Likewise, the image from the Canon f1.4 taken wide open at f1.4 is way out of focus. Your test clearly shows the benefits of manual focus using a split screen but it shows nothing else in my opinion. It doesn't demonstrate any differences in image quality or sharpness. To do that, each shot must be perfectly focused. These definitely are not.</p>

<p>Jamie, I agree. Even though I tried to aid the autofocus with extra light, this test clearly shows the the inability of the Canon autofocus lenses to match the precision of a manual focus system.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, the resolving resolution and contrast of the Minolta lenses wide open is just outstanding. Jaw dropping.</p>

<p>If not by this test alone (as I agree the autofocus is the main hurdle on the Canon lenses - which is a big problem by itself) but by the thousands of pictures I have shot in my life with the Canon EF 50mm 1.4, its performance wide open is not even in the same order of magnitude as the Minolta lenses (from 30 or 40 years ago).</p>

<p>If Canon made a new standard prime tack sharp wide open with performance comparable to the Minolta's, it would sell like hot pancakes.</p>

<p>I also shot a roll of Velvia through all the lenses and apertures with the same setup to have a secondary evaluation for comparison.<br>

I will post when I get it back from the lab.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If not by this test alone (as I agree the autofocus is the main hurdle on the Canon lenses - which is a big problem by itself)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience is that Canon's AF is as accurate as Live View MF at 10X magnification in good light - which is pretty impressive and certainly superior to manual focussing on a microprism screen. The choice on where the AF system focusses is another matter, but you can't blame an AF system for those "errors". Mauro, I'm tempted to suggest you don't waste film on all these tests since I am not really sure what purpose they serve really. The results of these tests so often generate as many issues as they are designed to solve.</p>

<p>While I appreciate that someone went through the trouble to do all this, I never have put much stock in lens tests, except maybe that one shows barrel distortion that could be a problem at a certain focal length. If your hypothesis was that Canon lenses vs Minolta lenses are going to show that Minolta's are superior, um, well, what's the point? Minolta MF lenses are largely unimportant with the vast majority of photographers today. I'm not dismissing Minolta's quality, as I own several and a bunch of lenses. However, they are not being made anymore, and in a sense, this is an irrelevant test. You may as well be testing a Gundlach-Manhattan portrait lens against something else. AF lenses for critical tests should be focused manually...it's the AF system that may be producing a soft image, not the lens. AF VS AF..go for it. But again, I'd rather see the results of real photographs than a bunch of lens tests. Then again, I like using a Great Wall medium-format SLR to shoot interesting imagery. Hardly a lens that'll "win" a lens test.</p>