View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: How good is the Minolta MD APO Rokkor 400/5.6 |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
How good is this rare lens, compared to other classics or some modern variants? I've had a hard time finding relevant information about this lens and how it performs on modern digital bodies. I had a discussion with one owner who said that he couldn't get as sharp pictures with it as he did with his Zuiko 300/4.5 but he said that the Zuiko had much more CA. I'm not sure but I suspect that the lack of sharpness is because of bad technique. 400mm is significantly longer than 300mm and the Rokkor is slower as well, requiring a very steady tripod, and preferably a remote release and mirror lock up (unless used on a mirrorless camera like the NEX).
Finally, how much would a mint copy fetch today? Thanks! _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
O never use the apo 400. But I can tell you that the OM 300 is not better than the MD IF f/4,5. Said that after watched some pics of 40 x 50 cm. Time ago. Yes, I know, it' relative, but almost always it is.
I hope tbat should help.
Rino _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Himself
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 3209 Location: Montreal
Expire: 2013-05-30
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Himself wrote:
I have no idea about the price but in my book APO designation cost money.
If you get it for cheap, go for it.
Edit : found a link
http://kevincameras.com/gallery/v/minolta/400_56/
But, that guy is well known for driving up prices. The real price should be in $800-$900 range. _________________ Moderator Himself |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
Got one with the 2xTC in mint condition. Will be interesting to see how it performs. Waiting for some decent light _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:59 am Post subject: Re: How good is the Minolta MD APO Rokkor 400/5.6 |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
How good is this rare lens, compared to other classics or some modern variants? I've had a hard time finding relevant information about this lens and how it performs on modern digital bodies. I had a discussion with one owner who said that he couldn't get as sharp pictures with it as he did with his Zuiko 300/4.5 but he said that the Zuiko had much more CA. I'm not sure but I suspect that the lack of sharpness is because of bad technique. 400mm is significantly longer than 300mm and the Rokkor is slower as well, requiring a very steady tripod, and preferably a remote release and mirror lock up (unless used on a mirrorless camera like the NEX).
Finally, how much would a mint copy fetch today? Thanks! |
It seems to me this should be a very fine lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I am unable to find any decent sample pictures taken with this lens. Is it just me and my poor search engine skills? Is this lens really that rare, seems like it anyway.
I will post samples myself soon but I don't have an adapter yet _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
I am unable to find any decent sample pictures taken with this lens. Is it just me and my poor search engine skills? Is this lens really that rare, seems like it anyway.
I will post samples myself soon but I don't have an adapter yet |
I doubt that many were made. It must have been expensive.
here is one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MD-400mm-f-5-6-APO-Tele-Rokkor-X-Lens-/110763190467 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I've heard that it cost over 1500 USD back in 1977, so yes it was very expensive.
I found the following data sheet on http://www.flickr.com/photos/42559244@N06/sets/72157623537958859/
Since this is a scan of a commercial brochure, I feel it is ok to borrow it (as I did provide a reference). Thanks to flickr member "rokkor777" for the original scanning and posting!
_________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015)
Last edited by Pontus on Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
I've heard that it cost over 1500 USD back in 1977, so yes it was very expensive.
I found the following data sheet on http://www.flickr.com/photos/42559244@N06/sets/72157623537958859/
Since this is a scan of a commercial brochure, I feel it is ok to borrow it (as I did provide a reference). Thanks to flickr member "rokkor777" for scanning posting!
|
Looks like a great lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I also found the following 1970'2 info booklet on http://www.flickr.com/photos/byjr/with/6674973157/#photo_6674973157
Again, since this is a scan of a 1970'2 info booklet, I feel it is ok to borrow it (as I did provide a reference). Thanks to flickr member "chippy1920" for the original scanning and posting!
_________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
If a company as trusted as Minolta calls it an APO in the 70's it should be excellent. What body are you going to adapt it to? _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I'm not going to alter the lens at all. I'm going to use it on my Sony NEX-5N with an adapter. I don't think I will be able to use the lens with the 2x TC, 1200mm is a bit too much for me. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
I'm not going to alter the lens at all. I'm going to use it on my Sony NEX-5N with an adapter. I don't think I will be able to use the lens with the 2x TC, 1200mm is a bit too much for me. |
Is the Nex-5n an aps-c body that can adapt virtually any mf lens? _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
That's correct. All the lenses I own can be used with any NEX with simple adapters. Some NEX models (like the 7) don't work well with wide lenses and especially rangefinder lenses though, there is a colour shift in the corners. The Sony NEX-5 is fine with most lenses though (there are exceptions). _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I got an article from a friendly guy who doesn't mind me sharing:
_________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
Interesting article, have you taken possesion of the lens yet? _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
hifisapi wrote: |
Interesting article, have you taken possesion of the lens yet? |
Yes, I have the lens and it is a beauty. I haven't tried it yet, I'll have to wait for spring and better light. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58521449@N00/sets/72157636827954133/ |
Album no longer exists. Can you update? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Very slow.
Just as slow as the 200mm 2.8 with a double 300S which is much much cheaper, quite good but has CA.
You also get a fast 200 mm for much less money... but Have not seen anything with 400 mm. See it as a collector's item, but maybe wrong. _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: How good is the Minolta MD APO Rokkor 400/5.6 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
How good is this rare lens, compared to other classics or some modern variants?
...
I had a discussion with one owner who said that he couldn't get as sharp pictures with it as he did with his Zuiko 300/4.5 but he said that the Zuiko had much more CA. I'm not sure but I suspect that the lack of sharpness is because of bad technique. 400mm is significantly longer than 300mm and the Rokkor is slower as well, requiring a very steady tripod, and preferably a remote release and mirror lock up ....
Finally, how much would a mint copy fetch today? Thanks! |
Last year, I have run tests with a like-new Rokkor 5.6/400mm APO, comparing the lens to e. g. the Canon FD 4.5/400mm and the Canon 2.8/400mm L. The Rokkor, at f5.6, simply was not sharp, neither in the center nor at the corners. It looked like astigmatism (!) even in the center: sometimes the vertical lines were sharp, sometimes the horizontal lines (depending on focusing), but never both. Something like this, to my knowledge, can only happen if the lens is badly de-centered. The owner of the lens sent it to a former Minolta repair center, and they said the lens was OK ... but comparing it to a (much cheaper) FD 4.5/400mm its center performance was nowhere near as good as the Canon. Let alone the 400mm L which blew the Rokkor away.
The Rokkor became excellent at f11; then the entire field is reasonably sharp (24MP FF), and there are very little CAs (much lesss than the FD 4.5/400mm, and less than the 400mm L @ as well; the 400L has nearly no CAs at f2.8, though!).
I have heard from other owners of the Rokkor 400mm APO that they had similar problems with their lenses.
Up to now, the whole issue is a mystery to me.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: How good is the Minolta MD APO Rokkor 400/5.6 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Pontus wrote: |
How good is this rare lens, compared to other classics or some modern variants?
...
I had a discussion with one owner who said that he couldn't get as sharp pictures with it as he did with his Zuiko 300/4.5 but he said that the Zuiko had much more CA. I'm not sure but I suspect that the lack of sharpness is because of bad technique. 400mm is significantly longer than 300mm and the Rokkor is slower as well, requiring a very steady tripod, and preferably a remote release and mirror lock up ....
Finally, how much would a mint copy fetch today? Thanks! |
Last year, I have run tests with a like-new Rokkor 5.6/400mm APO, comparing the lens to e. g. the Canon FD 4.5/400mm and the Canon new FD 2.8/400mm L. The Rokkor, at f5.6, simply was not sharp, neither in the center nor at the corners. It looked like astigmatism (!) even in the center: sometimes the vertical lines were sharp, sometimes the horizontal lines (depending on focusing), but never both. Something like this, to my knowledge, can only happen if the lens is badly de-centered. The owner of the lens sent it to a former Minolta repair center, and they said the lens was OK ... but comparing it to a (much cheaper) FD 4.5/400mm its center performance was nowhere near as good as the Canon. Let alone the 400mm L which blew the Rokkor away.
The Rokkor became excellent at f11; then the entire field is reasonably sharp (24MP FF), and there are very little CAs (much lesss than the FD 4.5/400mm, and less than the 400mm L @ as well; the 400L has nearly no CAs at f2.8, though!).
I have heard from other owners of the Rokkor 400mm APO that they had similar problems with their Rokkor 5.6/400mm APO lenses.
Up to now, the whole issue is a mystery to me.
Stephan |
_________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Thank you, Stephan, for that report. Very helpful. I thought I had read good things about the lens, then saw high prices that would indicate the same. I'll stick with my Novoflexar. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
I acquired an APO Tele Rokkor this year. Sadly, the rear group was heavily infested by fungus and someone tried to disassemble and repair it, but reversed one element on re-assembly. That being said, I cleaned it, got it all assembled in the right order and every part seems to be accounted for. The exterior looks pretty much pristine, too. No dents, not scratches. Nonetheless, images shot with the lens were - to put it mildly - disappointing. Double contours everywhere, impossible to focus. See this thread for some images.
After fiddling with the optics, I put a 0.1 mm spacer in between the rear group and the diaphragm which fixed the double lining and returned the lens to an acceptable performance. The bokeh is still nervous, though. I really don't know what could be wrong, as I see no parts where an optical adjustment could be made and it doesn't look like the lens was dropped or even slightly bumped in its life.
I know it's probably my copy, but overall I'm not impressed with this lens. On the plus side, it's very well corrected CA-wise and only shows some minor pink fringing in extreme backlit situations (tree branches against the bright sky). Minor means: I wouldn't even criticize modern lenses for this little bit of fringing. _________________ http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
For reference, a quick comparison of my (misaligned / flawed) copy of the lens with a contemporary 400 mm, using boring images of the moon. Let's start with the contender:
Vivitar 400 mm f/5.6, SR mount, 77 mm filter thread, serial 28XXXXX (Komine)
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
Not what I'm looking for in a 400 mm. Usable at f/11, rubbish otherwise. Now the titleholder:
Minolta APO Tele Rokkor 400 mm f/5.6
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
Considering that my Rokkor isn't perfect optically, results are still decent from f/8 onwards. The Vivitar actually looses every single match and only comes close to a tie at f/11. CAs are also way worse in the Vivitar in non-moon images. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna part with both lenses, though _________________ http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|