Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

MC Rokkor Macro 100mm f/3.5 - new acquisition
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Comparison of Rokkor MC 100mm f/3.5 and Minolta MD 100mm f/4.0
The newer MD generation is better than the old Rokkor. Of course


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Comparison of Rokkor MC 100mm f/3.5 and Minolta MD 100mm f/4.0
The newer MD generation is better than the old Rokkor. Of course


Testing MACRO lenses at infinity clearly shows the quality of this "TEST" Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
tf wrote:
Comparison of Rokkor MC 100mm f/3.5 and Minolta MD 100mm f/4.0
The newer MD generation is better than the old Rokkor. Of course


Testing MACRO lenses at infinity clearly shows the quality of this "TEST" Twisted Evil


Yes and no Wink

Of course the "average" Macro lens from the 1960s or 1970s (the common 3.5/50, 3.5/100 or 4/100mm) was designed for, maybe, something between 1:5 and 1:10. Nevertheless most manufacturers did promote them as "universal lenses from infinity to close range". And these days, most users will use them for exactly this purpose.

The whole "repro business", financially quite important for many professional photographers in the 1960/70s, was the reason to develop macro lenses with little distortion and good correction of field curvature. Such vintage macro lenses, around 1:5 or 1:10, usually have a good correction over the entire field. Nevertheless - and unknown to most! - the center resolution of e. g. the Ai Nikkor 1.4/50mm was better than the center resolution of the Ai 3.5/50mm Micro Nikkor, even at close range.

So, to summarize it, theses days most users of a macro/micro lens in the 1:1 ... 1:10 range won't use it for reproductions, but for subjects where corner performance simply doesn't matter. Many of today's users of these Macro lenses, however, are interested to shoot landscapes along with small objects. And exactly for them, the "tf" tests certainly are valuable.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The name "macro" became popular with the Kilfitt Makro-Kilar of 1955. Until then, macrophotography was simply done with a normal lens plus extension tubes or a bellows.

Lenses from the 1950s onwards received the name "macro" when they reached 1:2 without accessories (I'm excluding lenses specially designed to work with bellows). It is interesting to note that one version of Makro-Kilar 40mm F2.8 reached 1:1:
https://www.cameraquest.com/mackilar.htm

Lenses perform optimally for a given magnification, but today it is possible to design a macro lens (traditionally optimized for close focus) that has high performance from infinity to 1:1.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Nevertheless - and unknown to most! - the center resolution of e. g. the Ai Nikkor 1.4/50mm was better than the center resolution of the Ai 3.5/50mm Micro Nikkor, even at close range.


Thank you , Stephan, for this info - I've been surprised with this behavior when met it during the Minolta lenses test and until this moment didn't know the reason. One time I even started to think that something wrong with my macro 50 MDIII ))