Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

~100mm test for fun
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:03 am    Post subject: ~100mm test for fun Reply with quote
Here is a test with a few 100mm lenses. I was mostly interested wide open performance at portrait distance. They are converted in ACR with the same settings. Camera: Sony A7.

Lenses:
Canon EF 100mm 2.8 macro USM.
EBC Fujinon 100mm 2.8
LZK Edar 100mm 2.8
Mamiya Sekor C 110mm 2.8
Meyer Optik Görlitz Diaplan 100mm 2.8
Minolta MD Rokkor 100mm 2.5
Nikon Nikkor AiS 105mm 2.5
Soligor Telephoto 105mm 2.8 preset.

I curious to see the differences between the Nikkor and Rokkor. I knew that both are very good, sharp and have extra smooth bokeh.
As expected they are very similar, apart the 5mm difference they are very close. There is also a small distinction in color. Either one will serve you well!
I'm seeing excellent quality from the others as well, except the projector lenses. But you will see down at the end that even the projector lenses are quite good with some sharpness and contrast boost.



#1 Mamiya Sekor C 110mm 2.8



#2 Soligor Telephoto 105mm 2.8



#3 EBC Fujinon 100mm 2.8



#4 Nikkor 105mm 2.5 AiS



#5 MD Rokkor 100mm 2.5



#6 Canon EF 100mm 2.8 USM macro



#7 Edar 100mm 2.8



#8 Diaplan 100mm 2.8



100% crops.


#9 Mamiya Sekor C 110mm 2.8



#10 Soligor 105mm



#11 EBC Fujinon 100mm 2.8



#12 Nikkor 105mm 2.5



#13 MD Rokkor 100mm 2.5


#14 Canon EF 100 2.8 macro USM



#15 Edar 100mm 2.8



#16 Edar 100mm 2.8, sharp/contrast



#17 Diaplan 100mm 2.8



#18 Diaplan 100mm 2.8, sharp/contrast


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have made a similar comparison some months ago, using a few f2.8, f2.5, f2 and f1.8 lenses in the 100mm range:


The Nikkor 2.5/105mm used here is the old Sonnar type construction.
The bokeh difference between the 1.8/105mm Nikkor and the f2.8 constructions is remarkable indeed.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the rendering of the Mamiya-Sekor best. The Canon probably has the best sharpness and wide open contrast, but there is a quality about the mamiya I like more. The projector lenses are interesting. They shape up nicely with some pp.


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yep, it's the Mamiya-Sekor for me too.


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank for the comparison! 100mm is one of my favourites.
I own Canon FDn 100/2.8 (two copies, in fact), Zuiko 100/2.8 (non-MC) and recently sourced Minolta MD-III 100/2.5 (lucky me!).
I also recently had a chance to shoot with loaned Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8.

Canon is at the bottom of the pack in both wide open resolution and bokeh.
It's reputation of a sharp lens does not survive rendezvous with 36Mp FF sensor.
Front bokeh is one of the ugliest you can find, back bokeh is generally pleasing.
Strangely enough, Canon has perhaps the sharpest corners stopped down. Works really well as landscape lens

Zuiko is marvelously tiny, no-bullshit construction both inside and outside.
Olympus is heavily optimised for shooting wide open, the corners will never sharpen up.
But the center is very good to great. Outright murders FDn on wide open sharpness.
CAs can be truly huge and uncorrectable. Contrast is great. Flares are there, yet they are very pleasant.
Bokeh quality is great. It is so close to MD-III 100/2.5, sometimes you will have trouble telling them apart.
Front bokeh is also great.

Minolta MD-III is able to narrowly beat Zuiko on resolution in the dead center, and more confidently prevail towards the corners.
Both quality and quantity of the bokeh is the best out of the bunch. 6 straight-wavy blades is a disgrace though.
I'm not going to elaborate on MD-III performance further, since I just recently got it.


Finally, Kaleinar. Oh, boy: it's a tough one to assign a straightforward rating.
Optical resolution-wise it rivals MD-III.
The bokeh is different from everything listed above, and in a good way.
I'd put it right beside the Zuiko and Minolta in this regard.
Kaleinar has the most curved blades of them all, which nets it lot of points at F4 over it's rivals.
Enough with the praise though: this lens was ruined by abysmal manufacturing standards.
It shows lots of shiny non-blackened metal surfaces when looking from both front and back of the lens.
The blades are non-blackened too. On a sunny days this thing shines in a very literal sense.
One of the worst contrast I have ever found in a lens. Truly an abysmal performance.
By the time you pull the picture together, colors and local contrasts are all wrong.
The only one from the bunch which can and will send your pictures straight into a garbage bin.
If you're good and know this lens, you can pull a great picture from this one.
But why bother?


TL;DR: while you are busy lusting after MD-III, buy Zuiko, non-MC one is totally fine too.
In a real-world shooting it gets you the most bang for the buck.
Cuteness levels and mechanical feel are over the top too.

Last edited by aidaho on Fri May 24, 2019 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sciolist wrote:
Yep, it's the Mamiya-Sekor for me too.


+1


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for such a great work, the difference between some of them, is minimal, but mamiya looks so great.....no easy job to find a winner, but mamiya is easier to choose. Hard to test 100's because most of them are so good, if used properly..


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice work! I love 100mm/105mm lenses. Own probably 10+ to 20 of them. Always wanted to do some comparison but the task is daunting. Of all theses lenses, probably one of the them is not that good wide open.

Is Mamiya 110mm a medium format lens? If it is, it should outperform the rest.


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks everyone.

The Mamiya is indeed a 645 medium format lens. It's not even that big or heavy. The focus ring is a bit heavy though, but it's really precise and it's easy to nail focus. I recommend it along with the Mamiya A 150mm 2.8 that I've also got, if extra reach is needed.


PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I have made a similar comparison some months ago, using a few f2.8, f2.5, f2 and f1.8 lenses in the 100mm range:


The Nikkor 2.5/105mm used here is the old Sonnar type construction.
The bokeh difference between the 1.8/105mm Nikkor and the f2.8 constructions is remarkable indeed.

Stephan


Nice to see some faster ones in the mix. I'd like to try a 1.8 Nikkor some time. But a Zeiss 100mm f/2 is ahead on that list.


D1N0 wrote:
I like the rendering of the Mamiya-Sekor best. The Canon probably has the best sharpness and wide open contrast, but there is a quality about the mamiya I like more. The projector lenses are interesting. They shape up nicely with some pp.


The Mamiya sure is a good one, not that big and heavy either. The focus ring is a bit heavy but precise.
Looking at files at full resolution I don't think the Canon is that much sharper. But it was difficult to focus manually so it might be a bit off.


PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
Thank for the comparison! 100mm is one of my favourites.
I own Canon FDn 100/2.8 (two copies, in fact), Zuiko 100/2.8 (non-MC) and recently sourced Minolta MD-III 100/2.5 (lucky me!).
I also recently had a chance to shoot with loaned Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8.

Canon is at the bottom of the pack in both wide open resolution and bokeh.
It's reputation of a sharp lens does not survive rendezvous with 36Mp FF sensor.
Front bokeh is one of the ugliest you can find, back bokeh is generally pleasing.
Strangely enough, Canon has perhaps the sharpest corners stopped down. Works really well as landscape lens

Zuiko is marvelously tiny, no-bullshit construction both inside and outside.
Olympus is heavily optimised for shooting wide open, the corners will never sharpen up.
But the center is very good to great. Outright murders FDn on wide open sharpness.
CAs can be truly huge and uncorrectable. Contrast is great. Flares are there, yet they are very pleasant.
Bokeh quality is great. It is so close to MD-III 100/2.5, sometimes you will have trouble telling them apart.
Front bokeh is also great.

Minolta MD-III is able to narrowly beat Zuiko on resolution in the dead center, and more confidently prevail towards the corners.
Both quality and quantity of the bokeh is the best out of the bunch. 6 straight-wavy blades is a disgrace though.
I'm not going to elaborate on MD-III performance further, since I just recently got it.


Finally, Kaleinar. Oh, boy: it's a tough one to assign a straightforward rating.
Optical resolution-wise it rivals MD-III.
The bokeh is different from everything listed above, and in a good way.
I'd put it right beside the Zuiko and Minolta in this regard.
Kaleinar has the most curved blades of them all, which nets it lot of points at F4 over it's rivals.
Enough with the praise though: this lens was ruined by abysmal manufacturing standards.
It shows lots of shiny non-blackened metal surfaces when looking from both front and back of the lens.
The blades are non-blackened too. On a sunny days this thing shines in a very literal sense.
One of the worst contrast I have ever found in a lens. Truly an abysmal performance.
By the time you pull the picture together, colors and local contrasts are all wrong.
The only one from the bunch which can and will send your pictures straight into a garbage bin.
If you're good and know this lens, you can pull a great picture from this one.
But why bother?


TL;DR: while you are busy lusting after MD-III, buy Zuiko, non-MC one is totally fine too.
In a real-world shooting it gets you the most bang for the buck.
Cuteness levels and mechanical feel are over the top too.


The Zuiko seems nice. I'd also like to try a Kaleinar 5N. But I do have a Kaleinar 3B but it's a monster of a lens, haven't used it much.


PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Thank you for such a great work, the difference between some of them, is minimal, but mamiya looks so great.....no easy job to find a winner, but mamiya is easier to choose. Hard to test 100's because most of them are so good, if used properly..


That's a good conclusion. And I can recommend the Mamiya A 150mm 2.8 if longer reach is needed.


PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I have made a similar comparison some months ago, using a few f2.8, f2.5, f2 and f1.8 lenses in the 100mm range:


The Nikkor 2.5/105mm used here is the old Sonnar type construction.
The bokeh difference between the 1.8/105mm Nikkor and the f2.8 constructions is remarkable indeed.

Stephan


Yes , also the 1.8 is smoother but,for portraits, center resolution it's lot lower too. In my case, that's not a problem , but nowadays there are many demanding center sharpness high for portraits on 1.4 (like the new samyang 85mm af) . I know c/y Zeiss 100 f2 it's got good center sharpness(samples I've seen,never used one) but how many are that good at 1.8-2? Anyway, I'm still happy with the 100's I've got, but many people,used to modern lenses wouldn't agree with this issue.


PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:

...
Yes , also the 1.8 is smoother but,for portraits, center resolution it's lot lower too. In my case, that's not a problem, but nowadays there are many demanding center sharpness high for portraits on 1.4 (like the new samyang 85mm af) . I know c/y Zeiss 100 f2 it's got good center sharpness(samples I've seen,never used one) but how many are that good at 1.8-2? Anyway, I'm still happy with the 100's I've got, but many people,used to modern lenses wouldn't agree with this issue.

Today, I've been shooting portraits (for a large 24x32cm / 9.5x12.5 inch @ 400dpi) book, using both the Minolta AF 2/100mm and Nikkor AiS 1.8/105mm. Both lenses were used wide open. Their resolution is by far enough for such projects, an not jus in the center, but also towards the edges. Of course the Nikkor has a low contrast wide open, but that's not bad for portraits ...


PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting comparison, I have the Soligor but never use it as I believed it to be junk, maybe time to give it a spin based on your test, thank you.


PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Interesting comparison, I have the Soligor but never use it as I believed it to be junk, maybe time to give it a spin based on your test, thank you.


Yes give it a go it's far from trash!
Here is my favorite picture with it. I took it out on a foggy day and it was just the right tool for the job.


PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote:

...
Yes , also the 1.8 is smoother but,for portraits, center resolution it's lot lower too. In my case, that's not a problem, but nowadays there are many demanding center sharpness high for portraits on 1.4 (like the new samyang 85mm af) . I know c/y Zeiss 100 f2 it's got good center sharpness(samples I've seen,never used one) but how many are that good at 1.8-2? Anyway, I'm still happy with the 100's I've got, but many people,used to modern lenses wouldn't agree with this issue.

Today, I've been shooting portraits (for a large 24x32cm / 9.5x12.5 inch @ 400dpi) book, using both the Minolta AF 2/100mm and Nikkor AiS 1.8/105mm. Both lenses were used wide open. Their resolution is by far enough for such projects, an not jus in the center, but also towards the edges. Of course the Nikkor has a low contrast wide open, but that's not bad for portraits ...


I've seen very nice results with that Minolta ,but it's price ,comparing with actual lenses ,it's not very nice. I'm using komura 100 1.8 ,low contrast wo,but not sharp on corners wo. For portraits , thats not a problem at all.


PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another very good 100 mm lens is the Minolta Rokkor MC 100/2.

Vefry sharp from F/2,4.

Little CA to F/4. It's gone at F/4,8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1