Comparison of lenses Minolta MD 135mm 1:2.0, Minolta MD 135mm 1:2.8
This comparison is correct only for conditions and equipment used for tests. Test results can be differ if any element is changed.
Tested lenses reviews:
Long distance – sharpness:
Test description: Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. Targets (buildings) were fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters. All shots were made with apertures from fully opened and up to F16. ISO-100. Shutter Speed – depends on light (camera A-mode). SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot to exclude focus-shift.
Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cut into 300×200 px elements (100% crops), combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.
- Sunlight has been changed during the session.
- I am just a man, I do not pretend that in all cases my focus settings were absolutely accurate. But I aspired to it.
- Bad weather is better for this test – low-light is required for wide-opened apertures to slow down shutter speed.
‘What does it mean?’ – my conclusion:
This is unequal battle of one of the most expensive Minolta’s lens versus one of the cheapest. Result is amazing: in general – both lenses are the same. Even more: if ‘to use microscope’ then very slight advantage of Minolta MD 128mm F2.8 on apertures up to F4 can be spotted. But the difference is so small that better to think both lenses provide the similar quality from the sharpness point of view. So, resolutions tests can’t help photographer to make a choice between this pair and lens selection should be based on other characteristics.