| Article Index |
|---|
| @35mm: Mir 1B vs Tamron 17-50 vs Minolta 28-105 vs Minolta 35-105 old |
| 35mm center |
| 35mm corner |
| Conclusion |
| All Pages |
When I purchased the excellent Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di2, I tested it versus my twoo copy of the Minolta AF 50 f1.7, then I decided to sold my 3 autofocus prime lenses in the same range because the image quality of the Tamron zoom was good enough to replace the primes. Only the Minolta AF 50 f1.7 was slightly better @2.8 in hight contrast scene due to a better control of pruple fringing. Moreover, the Tamron was slightly better than the Sigma 24 f/2.8 WIDE II.
I don't know why but I kept the Mir 1B but I do not use it. Maybe because it is a very beautifull object.
Today I am decided to compare 4 lenses @35mm:
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR DI2 @35. This lens is widely considered as an excellent zoom in it's range. In my opinion this zoom is a must have for APS-C camera owners
The Minolta AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5 old (beercan era with the macro switch) @ 35mm. My copy of this lens is very sharp and produce an incredible 3D effect due to it's good micro-contrast .
The Minolta AF 28-105 f3.5-4.5. @35. A more modern zoom I love for outdoor shooting.
Then the Mir 1B. This is a 37mm M42 fast prime lens.
The lenses are compared with my Sony Alpha 700 DSLR @100iso, Super Steady Shot off, on a tripod. The files are in cRAW format.
The full scene is the following :
Center Crops (35 mm for all competitors but the Mir 1B : 37mm) at different aperture settings
| f/ | Mir 1B (37mm) M42 | Tamron 17-50 XR DI | Minolta AF 35-105 "old" | Minolta AF 28-105 |
| 2.8 |  |
 |
||
| 3.5 |  |
 |
 |
|
| 4.0 |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 5.6 |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 8 |  |
 |
 |
 |
Corner crops (35 mm for all competitors but the Mir 1B : 37mm) at differents aperture settings
| f/ | Mir 1B 37mm M42 |
Tamron 17-50 XR DI | Minolta AF 35-105 old | Minolta AF 28-105 |
| 2.8 |  |
 |
||
| 3.5 |  |
 |
 |
|
| 4.0 |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 5.6 |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 8.0 |  |
 |
 |
 |
As a reminder, the Mir 1B is a very unexpensive M42 manual focus prime lens.
The Minolta AF 35-105 old and the Minolta AF 28-105 are discontinued autofocus zoom lenses that can be found on the after market for smart prices
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR DI2 is a zoom being currently considered as excellent from an optical & image quality point of view
| f/ | Mir 1B | Tamron 17-50 | Minolta AF 35-105 | Minolta AF 28-105 |
| 2.8 center | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2.8 corner | 2 | 1 | ||
| 3.5 center | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3.5 corner | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 4.0 center | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 4.0 corner | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 5.6 center | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 5.6 corner | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 8.0 center | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| 8.0 corner | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
The Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 corners are soft at all aperture, then it is not the best lens for landscape.
The Tamron is overall the best lens.
But when stopped down to f/8.0, the old M42 Mir 1B is as good as the Tamron 17-50. So I would recommand the Mir 1B as a good landscape lens considering it's focal length and and it's excellent sharpness stopped down to f/8.0 and more. When I performed this test, I noticed that the more I was closing the Mir 1B aperture, the more exposure and white balance was wrong with my Alpha 700. I observed the same issue with the Jupiter 9 but not with the Jupiter 37A nor the Jupiter 21M
The Minolta AF 35-105 is excellent wide opened (It can beat the Tamron 17-50 @f/3.5). This zoom is one of my favorite lenses. But I do not use it for landscape.
