Author Topic: Minolta 35mm f/2.8 Shift CA Rokkor ***** (Read 3254 times)

Antoine G · « **on:** September 21, 2010, 07:18:27 PM »

I was wondering why i'm not using that lens, and a thread about the VFC on a french cameras collector forum which i'm part of too, made me try to make a test to have an real opinion.
I took 3 subjects, two objects and one outside window scene (worst) and test only here the VFC (Variable Field Curvature front ring)
It's now more clear about some specifications, and conclusions.

The test is made at ISO 100, Æ’2.8, Æ’5.6, and Æ’11 and +0.7 exposure on camera (the first object in low natural light made undexposed my camera reaching f/11)

The PITCHER, F/2.8 focus on the 51 sign :
Neutral Position

Convex Position (right) á´—

Concav Position (left) á´–

The SATELLITE, F2.8 focus on the globe near the front antena contact :
Neutral Position

Convex Position (right) á´—

Concav Position (left) á´–

So what are or were the advantage?
When this lens was made cameras bodies speed shuttering were limited to 1/1000 but film ISO could be 25 and even more so that's not a real argument.
What with the speed here? in strong light if you have to reach high aperture and you want to be a have a nice DOF with a limited focussing area it was good, in inverse in low light you can add some dof behind and a little bit beyond even in full aperture.

For myself i'm very mitiged, not too much stunned, i start to think it's a nice lens for blurried portrait in á´–, and still life á´— but let's see by yourself and wait a little for the test at Æ’5.6 and Æ’11.

voyager · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:03:46 AM »

Thanks for posting this! Very sharp lens...worth considering.

adash · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:23:43 AM »

That's odd, I was expecting a much deeper selective focus effect at these distances. Can you post a link with the description of that lens?

Antoine G · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2010, 10:07:53 AM »

I'd had a problem to post last night so i go on to the full review and after conclusions and links

The PITCHER, F5.6
Neutral Position

Convex Position á´—

Concave Position á´–

The SATELLITE, F5.6
Neutral Position

Convex Position á´—

Concave positioná´–

Antoine G · « **Reply #4 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:00:35 PM »

I'd had a problem to post last night so i go on to the full review and after conclusions and links

The PITCHER, F11
Neutral Position

Convex Position á´—

Concave Position á´–

The SATELLITE, F11
Neutral Position

Convex Position á´—

Concave Position á´–

Antoine G · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:09:52 PM »

My first thought just coming in mind is ,may be, trying to do some HDRFF, a sort of HDR Full Focus combining the 3 samples!
Nothing good i think, the distance change a little, i saw that when i was shooting but i will try.

For more understanding features i will shot the lens with the respective items focussing barrels at the used distances, for showing the very short dof and the VFC dof add.

Antoine G · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2010, 06:29:02 AM »

Here is the lens, focussed at the distance i took the pictures of the pitcher, for the satellite it was closer, between 0.4 and 0.5m.

I saturate more the primary colors that are the ones of the VFC ring and its coresponding landmarks just behing the aperture ring.
It shows at first that there is no quite dof before Æ’8 normally using the lens, then even Æ’11 isn't an aperture for a big dof at close distances.

In my test i used only the extreme settings, the red ones.
Picture taken with the 18mm Pentax with the W21 close-up attachment.

Minolta 35mm f/2.8 Shift CA Rokkor *****