Thanks for the tips thepalias. I've tried everything expect removing the filter. Indeed I use a variable ND filter. Its a must in DSLR filmmaking. Mine is a Fadrer MK-II: http://lightcraftworkshop.com/fader-nd-mk-ii.html

I'll try tomorrow the lenses without it and will update you.

I second (third?) the MC PG. It's more like a scanner than a lens, fantastic rez.

Only my Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.7 is in the some league, the C/Y 1.4 is softer!

The famed 58mm 1.2 (an impressive heap of metal and glass) is wonderful, but very different. Dreamy soft.

@kavadni totally agree, but I doubt the difference is noticable in HD video, probably only in cropped stills to see.

The FD 24mm f/2 meets Rokkor 24/2.8 but also unnoticable for video (except that it is faster)

No difference between X and non-X samples.

I have found a Canon FD 24mm 2.8 SSC for 75$. Comparing the price to Ebay I think its an interesting deal. Any comments on that lens? I hear good things about Canon rendition of colors. How does it compare to the Minolta 24mm? Again, i will be using it mainly for video. Is it sharp enough wide open?

Thanks

@bumsklumpen if this info serves you: I own Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 MC PG and regarding it is the very best vintage lens in this focal length & speed I've ever tried.

If used nearly or fully open, its optical performane beats very clearly the old Nikkors and Canon FDs (we talk only about the 50mm f/1.4 primes) in terms of:

• contrast
• sharpness
• color rendition
• flare
• lower distortions of the field curvature
• CA under better control
• diffraction (when stopped down)

But there is also the cult Rokkor lens that one still shouldn't miss: the 58mm f/1.2 IMHO, although it is really matter of the taste. It has so much distortions, especially when open, but they all look sooooo creamy and beautiful. And if you compare how little it costs compared to its another cult competitor NOCT Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 it is a-must-have lens.

The Rokkor MC 50mm f/1.4 PG is optically clearer and sharper than the legendary Rokkor 58mm f/1.2, though.

Edit: just added PG as that is the lens I mean (thx @kavadni)

@Ivanlee, I repair cameras and lenses in my spare time. The MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4 & the Auto Rokkor 58mm F1.4 may (or may not) be the same optical formula (I could take both apart to check!!), but I did some optical tests a while back the MC was much better than the Auto.

I have quite a few Minolta lenses: MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4 (probably 12 of these). These have very good resolution, contrast is not great but adequate, no CA, suffers from coma at larger apertures with bright lights. It's still one of my favorites

Auto Rokkor 58mm F1.4

50mm F1.4, MC Rokkor, MD Rokkor, MD. Similar in F1.7

28mm 2.8, 35mm 2.8

MD 85mm F2. superb

MC Rokkor 100 F2.5

MC & MD 135mm 2.8, MD 135mm 3.5

MC Rokkor 200mm F3.5

MD 24-50mm F4

MD 35-70mm 3.5 macro

MD 35-70mm 3.5

MD 50mm 3.5 Macro

MD 100mm F4 Macro

@aashkar77 Thanks for posting the screenshots, now we've solved what it is. You can get rid of big part of the flare with good lens hood and stopping down the apperture for ca 2 steps. And if you use filters, only the top class quality ones can serve you (in every critical situation try if it is better without the filter).

The flare is also matter of taste- even in many great, classical cinema productions one can see it very often. Otherwise, as @nomad wrote you: good primes are often better choice than the zoom lenses, which have much more optical elements than the primes. The coating by most of the modern lenses is very much improved for reducing the flare, but one gets often more ghosting than with many vintage lenses.

Here you can see an example of one ghosting, which could have been reduced if the apperture was stopped down (it is six-blades diaphragm that seems to be nearly fully open):
http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses/ghosting03.jpg

And on this example you can see how one of the world's greatest FF wide zoom lenses (which is free of flare) ghosts heavily when direct sunlight is on the front element:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1

The first one is shooting into the sun. Normal!

The second has a very bright reflection from the car. To be expected.

The third has mirrored objects on a window pane, IMHO.

If you don't like the first two, get Master Primes. Just kidding, but you are not the guy for vintage glass, I'm afraid.

As everyone was guessing, that's flare, not CA.

@aashkar77 please post photo of an example what you mean when saying "CA"

If I have it wrong somebody please correct me.

@aashkar77

CA is not dependent on the angle of the sun to the lens. I suspect also that you are seeing flare.
Have you tried shading the lens?

If you are used to the super sharp legacy 50mm from any of the major brands and of course the newer lenses like the Olly 45mm, the legacy 135s are only going to be "good" in comparison. However, the close focussing Viv. 135 is worth acquiring if you can get it at a good price, especially with the handy macro. If I have some time I will AB it with my Minolta 135 and also my $7 JC Penney 135mm. The Russian 135 I had was a tad sharper, but slower.

I have the exact same opinions as @DrDave

I have never used the Vivitar 135 close focusing....only the 200mm f/3 close focusing...I've used this lens for a job but I was not impressed with its sharpness and CA control, but the bokeh is nice

@aashkar77, never used the 35-70 for video... but I will try soon