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

Eight vintage MF 35-105mm zooms compared
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kiddo wrote:
You just make Minolta 100 2.5 look so Sharp....


The MD-III 4/100mm Macro is as sharp as the MD-III 2.5/100mm, and it has even less CAs ... just in case you want the best 100mm MD lens Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vivaldibow wrote:
Your work is always appreciated! I wonder if you had the Vivitar/Soligor 35-105mm f/3.5
to add in the comparison? Thanks.


I may have a Vivitar and/or Soligor 3.5/35-105mm lens, stored somewhere in the attic. The two Tokina RMC 3.5/35-105mm lenses i had found there as well, however, were "fogged". Impossible to conduct a meaningful test, and certainly not worth cleaning.

S

EDIT: no Vivitar 35-105 it seems, and the Soligor actually is 3.5/37-105mm!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the 14th you posted lenses labeled Nikkor P.C 2.5 100 Sample 1/2..... That as a typo? I checked mine tonight and its simply a P which is an earlier single coated variant. Still shoots very well.

The 105 2.5 is per Ken Rockwell 5 elements in 4 groups, whereas I had thought that a Xenon design is 6 elements in 5 groups, but again that is just what I read, i am no optician. I do like the Schneider Xenons....


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gatorengineer64 wrote:
On the 14th you posted lenses labeled Nikkor P.C 2.5 100 Sample 1/2..... That as a typo?

No. My lens looks exactly like this one (apart from the SN of course):
https://www.destoutz.ch/lens_105mm_f2.5_526586.html


Gatorengineer64 wrote:
I checked mine tonight and its simply a P which is an earlier single coated variant. Still shoots very well.

It might be the Sonnar version, but until you post an image of your lens from both the front- and backend i can't tell for sure.

Gatorengineer64 wrote:

The 105 2.5 is per Ken Rockwell 5 elements in 4 groups, whereas I had thought that a Xenon design is 6 elements in 5 groups, but again that is just what I read, i am no optician. I do like the Schneider Xenons....

The Xenon design is a 5/4, and NOT a 6/5; so what you read was wrong!
Again, try to read Haruo Sato publication on the Nikkor 2.5/105mm
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0005/index.htm

Haruo Sato is one of the most eminent current lens designers. He has calculated - among many others - the Nikkor 2.8/14-24mm FF lens which was a huge step forward in the area of superwides: It was better than any contemporary 14mm prime!

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
On the 14th you posted lenses labeled Nikkor P.C 2.5 100 Sample 1/2..... That as a typo?

No. My lens looks exactly like this one (apart from the SN of course):
https://www.destoutz.ch/lens_105mm_f2.5_526586.html


Stephan, I think he meant the lens is a 105mm but you labeled it as 100mm...


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your label on your pics listed it as a 100... I understand now you meant 105...

Also if you read your Nikon link you referene it refers to the design as a Xenotar type which is not the same as a Xenon.

https://rugarchives.org/1998-08/00509.html

In the same way a Septon isnt a planar, might be a cousin but Allphotolens lists the vernerable schneider 50 1.9 Xenon as a 6/4....

Either way as long as it produces a good image, it doesnt matter. I believe from Ken Rockwells site that my older Nikon P is a single coated version of the 105 pc.