Video

This might be my favorite focal length.. yes I'm weird

I get that you are a real Nikkor advocate, and it is a very nice lens. But would it be possible to compare Nikkor and Minolta 2.8s again and at least comment int the description on the result? I believe you have missed the focus with Minolta. Just would be nice to be fair to the very good Minolta lens, cause it is a great lens after all! Thanks for the good quality video, otherwise... Another great lens for comparing in this range is an interesting Soviet space race lens ("AL")TAIR-11 133mm f/2.8 ;)

My first telephoto - Spiratone 200mm f4.5 preset. Yashica Penta J. Only shot B&W with it - Plus-X, Tri-X, which I processed in D76. I don't remember it as a particularly remarkable Lens. Low contrast.

I have the Hanimex 28mm. My copy needs to be underexposed by 2/3 thirds EV to approximate the contrast of the 28mm Nikkor. Not as contrasty as the Nikkor and not as sharp, but decent enough for the price.

Fantastic you must have put so much time and energy into making this detailed video

I found a good deal on a Sigma Super Wide today and purchased it before watching this video. I am now really excited to review this lens when it arrives. I’m planning on using it on my Minoltas and Sony Digital cameras

There is the Nikkor AIS, and then the rest (among these lenses). No contest.

i have a problem with 28mm m42 lens on Canon 5D its Auto Beroflex 28mm F2.8 , it cant focus past 3meters , also after 50mm next most common lens is 35mm , 28mm is a bit on a wide side . I dont know , even today , classic is 50mm , after that 35mm. Wider then that are available but considered specialized .

Great video! Thank you. Would have been nice to see the Vorn lens version of the portrait post processed. Do you have that posted anywhere? I've been considering getting the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AIS, and this video has cemented that thought. Although, I would like to compare it to the Series E Nikon version of the same lens as well. Thanks again!

It's the Rokkor MC lenses that were made during the Leica partnership. The MD lenses were made after the partnership ended and have different coatings

Just bought Nikon 135 f2DC vintage lens I love it it is really sharp at f2.8 to f5.6 etc

I couldn’t get past the porno music in the background. Wayyyy too loud. I couldn’t hear you.

Thank you! I can’t seem to find the Quantaray (MD) anywhere, except for one that has 58 thread instead of 52. Do you think it would perform similarly since they’re the same brand?

Great comparison! Thank you.

pro (kino)?where find it?

I know you did this video three years ago now, but you missed several really great 135s that are not that expensive. I own four 135s myself. 1) Mamiya/Sekor, f2.8, M42 mount. A stunning lens, the bokeh is so creamy. Will a nice built in hood. 2) Vivitar f2.8, M42 mount. A nice lens with wonderful controls and its so nice to use, but its a bit soft. It's useful for those glowy, dreamy, soft focus sorts of shots. It includes a built in hood. 3) Konica Hexanon f3.2, AR mount. This is a VERY nice lens. Very sharp with beautiful bokeh and blur. It focuses very close (1M). Its also light weight, small and has a built in hood. 4) Konica Hexanon f2.5, AR mount. As sharp as the 3.2 Konica is, this lens steps it up another notch. Even @ f2.5, its crazy sharp! The bokeh is very similar to the 3.2, but maybe not as creamy. This is a heavy lens. The first three elements in the front of the lens are massive, thick, chunks of glass. But if all that weight is what renders that sharpness and bokeh, then I'll take it! Its a smooth lens to use, the controls aren't as nice to use as the Vivitar, but its and easy lens to use right away and feels good in your hands. The Konica Hexanon AR lenses as a group are actually some amazing lenses that don't get all the hype that other, bigger name brand lenses get. I bought both of my Konica 135s for less than $40 each. They did have a wee bit of fungus, but they both cleaned up nicely and are spectacular lenses. The entire line is very special. Even the basic 50mm f1.8 isn't bad. The 50 f1.7 is much, much better and the 40mm f1.8 is insane how cool it is and how sharp. It holds up so well to high MP sensors. The 57mm f1.4 is so much fun to use. A lot like an old Takumar lens in how it feels, but the blur in the bokeh is very special. It also looks great on you camera! I use my entire collection of vintage lenses on my Canon R7. Its a fairly aggressive sensor and quickly shows out weak lenses. As for your review, Great job. I do believe you did miss the focus on several of those shots of your daughter. Especially those Minolta lenses. If you look at the couch she is sitting on and compaired to the Nikkor shot, the Minolta lens has the couch more in focus. So you simply missed it. Also, kudos to your daughter for sitting there and putting up with you changing out lenses! LOL! I've got kids myself. They got tired of me using them as models. LOL! Lastly, your audio levels are all sorts of messed up. It makes it hard to watch your videos. It's something I've noticed in many of your videos. I record audio for a living and so I'm especially sensitive to this. Your voice over needs to be louder and your background music needs to be driven down. This is a fairly common mistake a lot of people make. In all honesty, nobody is here for the music. The fact that I sat through to the end and put up with audio levels all over the place is a testament to the content.

A very helpful review. Noting the centre sharpness of the Tokina, as you noted, a great but for APSC and M4/3.

I own all of these in my collection. I like the Olympus 24 among all of them. I won’t say takumar 24/3.5 is the best but not as bad as the one in your review. I guess yours was harshly hit or there is fungus on the glass.

🤔...Vintage lenses should probably be compared closed down at least one stop.... IMO vintage lenses for the most part were not intended to be shot wide open. The lenses were made brighter than modern lenses to aid you in seeing through the viewfinder for manual focusing, but were not generally intended to be shot wide open. This is the reason as soon as autofocus happened lenses got darker. They didn't need lenses to be so bright because without the manual focusing screen viewfinders got brighter and you weren't using them to focus anyhow....Of course lenses got darker still recently with the transition to mirrorless because the optical viewfinder has been eliminated completely and we now see what the lens sees.

Thanks for the comparison video. I have seven Pentax Takumar prime lenses that range from 28mm to 300mm focal lengths. All produce good image quality. I never bought any Takumar screw-mount lenses wider than 28mm because they were either too expensive or their image quality was not that good. Based on this video, your 24mm definitely did not have good image quality.

I own and use a Nikon 24mm f/2 Nikkor lens in a 24/50/105mm or 24/50/135mm lens kit.

What a nice presentation! Im impressed and also this is exactly how I do my comparisons and you saved me a lot of work here. The Albinar looks so soft in the initial test I would suppose it has a bit of haze or really ineffective coatings.

Push the boat out a bit more and opt for the Carl Zeiss Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135.

The Minolta 24mm 2.8 is the same Lens design as in the Leica Elmarit-R 24mm 2.8 because it was designed by Minolta for Leica, the differences is the build quality and the coating.

I bought a very cheap vivitar md 135mm f3.5 for $30 and is sharper than the nikkor lol

i really love your format of showing everything side-by-side.

What about the Konica ar 135 f2.5

Konica 135mm f3.2 will surprise you

Great video, thanks.

Konica 135 f3.2 is a real gem sharper than my Pentax 135s

Good work, appreciated. These comparisons can be misleading at occasions, for example @16:42 it is pretty obvious that the image on the right Takumar 135mm 2.5 is not focused on the eyes as the image on the left is, it is actually girl's hair further back that is in focus, which renders her face out of focus. The strand of hair in front of her eye is completely blurred and out of focus. Having said that, I understand it is tricky to be consistent every single time especially in such shallow depth of field and subjects that might not be entirely static. Just my observation, enjoyed your comparison.

Great video comparison and coverage. Just wondering if you were to throw in the Olympus zuiko 135mm 2.8 lens into the mix how would the results turn out?

THANKS! I like this kind of tests, but I don't always find my favorite lenses, so it's missing the Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.7 better than the 1.8, the famous Nikkor 50mm f2 (with rubber nose black) the famous Ricoh XR rikenon 50mm f2, ((japan, the poor man's summicron) etc.... I love the Yashica 50 f2 or f1.9, compact and easy to use - you should also compare with the Pentax smc 50mm f1.7 should be compared with some m42 55mm f1.8 f1.7 f2....like Mamiya. (part of which is thorium)

Interesting. I actually preferred the Pro (Kino), wide open, for the portrait. It has virtually the same detail as the Nikkor, but the skin tones are much nicer.

Dump the music or learn about sound mixing!

Great discussion. Love the 24mm lenses.

I have a broken but kind of usable and sharp beroflex 135mm f2.8 m42 mount lens. It's broken because when you move the focus ring it also moves the aperture blades. I don't know what could cause that. It's still a good lens though.

Carl Zeiss Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135.

Wish the canon 135 was here too.

14:00 I see a lot of chromatic aberrations on the Nikkor. Left edge of the gable where the wide siding starts has a ton of teal bleed. 14:32 the Celtic is clearly better- just look at the detail on the stones.

What the hell is microcontrast? Is it even real?

The best value is the H.

Hey! Just came across your video after testing my own 135mm lenses. I have to admit that the Nikkor is one of the best, but … I own the SuperTakumar but the even more expensive 6 elements version and this beats even the Nikkor by a small amount in therms of sharpness. The CAs are even better by much more then only a tiny bit. And my biggest disappointment was the Tair11-2 from Russia. This is a so much hyped lens, but comes not even close to the other 2. Ok, the bokeh balls remain round when you stop it down due it’s 20 blended aperture, but what’s the point when you even have to stop it down to get an exceptional sharp image. Even the Nikon E-Series 135mm is better, and much cheaper. Whatever …. Br Christoph PS: Tair11-2 in a very rare silver version for sale 😂

For the Soligor, if you have a serial # that starts with 17XXXXXX then it's a Tokina. I've got a 28mm 2.8 T4 and I love it.

Great comparison. I was about to buy the Super Takumar for my Pentax Spotmatic, but now I am in doubt, haha. Although, I think there is no better option on the m42 mount :(

I just got the 24mm Super-Takumar today, and I can say my copy is very sharp. I use mine for video, and it's almost sharper than I like... I may use a diffusion filter sometimes like I do with my 28mm.

Your videos are convincing me to get the Nikkor 😂 I'm curious though, if I was to go up in budget to the ~$120 it currently costs, how would it compare to others in its price range?

I tested my three vintage 24mm lenses to see which was the sharpest and clearest, using my Sony A7Rii. This is how they came out. The Olympus was way clearer than the rest. 1) Olympus OM-System H.Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8 2) Canon FD-N 24mm, f2.8 3) Asahi Super Multi Coated Takumar 24mm f3.5

I tested my three vintage 24mm lenses to see which was the sharpest and clearest, using my Sony A7Rii. This is how they came out. The Olympus was way clearer than the rest. 1) Olympus OM-System H.Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8 2) Canon FD-N 24mm, f2.8 3) Asahi Super Multi Coated Takumar 24mm f3.5

I love your review format.. a bit of everything.. and personal feedback.. very informative. totally subscribed. :P my problem is I need to get of my butt and pick up a minolta and olympus adapter.. that minolta was already on my wish list. So a bit of confirmation bias on my part regarding the minolta and this video. however, I was surprised at how soft the pentax was.. also the performance at f8.. it looked like f2. :P Might be worth it to have the pentax.. just for that odd portrait where you can have super sharp subject yet still mysteriously blurry background.