| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
!Karen
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 837
Location: Belgium Baby
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:38 pm Post subject: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor PF vs MD Tele Rokkor 135mm F2.8 |
 |
|
!Karen wrote:
The contestants (before cleaning sorry  )
If I'm correct, the MC has 6 elements in 5 groups and the MD has 4 elements in 4 groups (I have put this one on a scale as tb_a suggested in another topic and it weighs 528 grams).
The test:
straight out of camera, no PP whatsoever, not even sharpening after resize. on tripod and 10 sec self timer. manual settings so that whitebalance etc didn't change between shots.
MC 2.8
MD 2.8
MC 4
MD 4
MC 5.6
MD 5.6
MC 8
MD 8
I find MD renders slightly warmer 'fuller' colors and is sharper at f2.8 and f4. By f5.6 there is imo no difference in sharpness anymore between the 2 lenses. For CA I don't really see a difference between the 2.
_________________
FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Apart from the obviously higher contrast of the multi coated one, the differences are too small to be consequential. This is usually the case with good 135mms.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
!Karen
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 837
Location: Belgium Baby
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
!Karen wrote:
Yep difference is small
I did find MD way easier to focus at large apartures. For some reason the focus peaking is much clearer and you can instantly tell in the viewfinder/screen when it 'snaps' perfectly into focus. I only had to take one shot.
For the MC I had to shoot different photos with each time a tiny focus change so that I could pick the best one on my PC.
_________________
FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
Thanks for the shoot-out, Karen 
To my eyes, the Wall-E stands out more at f/2.8 in the MD image. Probably due to the higher contrast and slightly less spherical aberrations. In my experience, this is also the reason the peaking works better. But the bokeh of the MC version is a little more pleasing, because it has less contrast, too and looks a tad softer. And yes, this is the "legendary" MD-I 4/4. It looks identical to my copy.
_________________
http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Thank you for posting !karen.
I have both lenses and have not made such an extensive test. I prefer the MD 4 elments. Not only is it sharper wide open but it gives better contrast . The MC can give sometimes washed coulours ( flare?). At the end , I use only the MD.
Last edited by memetph on Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Contrast and resolving power let the MD be focus easily.
I note more ca in the MD images. The same With mine.
MD is a nice lens. but that CA..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Focus peaking uses contrast detection, so it is natural that a lens with more contrast works better with focus peaking.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
!Karen
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 837
Location: Belgium Baby
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
!Karen wrote:
Oh right! Thanks for that info 
Maybe a stupid question but is it so that MD lenses are better than their predecessor MC lenses? Or is this not always thecase? I am currently weeding out my collection, I have a lot of doubles MC-MD so it would save me a lot of time if I don't have to test them all side by side like this.
_________________
FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM
Last edited by !Karen on Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| papasito wrote: |
Contrast and resolving power let the MD be focus easily.
I note more ca in the MD images. The same With mine.
MD is a nice lens. but that CA..... |
It's just 1 click in Adobe Camera Raw to remove the purple fringing. 
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mir
Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 976
Location: Montreal, Canada
Expire: 2017-09-30
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mir wrote:
I have almost the exact same lenses, except my 4/4 is the MC Tele Rokkor (1975, MC-X)
and i was wondering which one to keep...
I don't always keep the later lenses, even if it appears logical most times....
But in this case, i think i will.
Thanks for sharing !
_________________
"Obsta principiis, finem respice"
"There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness"
MISC: Tamron SP 35-80 (01A), Auto Chinon Tomioka 1.4/55, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90, Tamron SP 5,6/300 (54B)
ZEISS: WG Distagon 2.8/25, WG Distagon 2.8/35 HFT, WG Planar HFT 1.4/50, Ultron 1.8/50, WG Sonnar 2.8/85, WG Sonnar HFT 2.8/135
VOIGTLÄNDER : Ultron Aspherical 1.8/21, Ultron 2/28, Nokton Aspherical 1.2/35, Nokton Classic 1.4/40, Nokton Aspherical 1.5/50, Color-Heliar 2.5/75
MINOLTA: MD 3.5/35-70 Macro, MD 1.2/50, MC Rokkor-X 1.2/58, MD Macro 3.5/50
LEITZ: SUMMICRON-R 2/35 (II), SUMMICRON-R 2/50 (II), TELE ELMARIT-M 2,8/90 (Thin)
CANON RF: 2.8/28, 2/35, 1.2/50, 1.4/50, Serenar 1.8/50, 2/85, 2/100, 3.5/100
LTM : KMZ Jupiter-8 2/5cm, TOKYO KOGAKU Topcor-S 2/5cm, CHIYOKO SUPER ROKKOR C 2/5cm, Nippon Kogaku NIKKOR-H.C 2/5cm, FUJI FILM CO. FUJINON L 2/5cm
And a small Minolta AF set: 2.8/20, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 2/100, 4.5/100-200
@we3fotography
@7plus_pictures
@_whats.that.car_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tervueren
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 1177
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-08
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tervueren wrote:
Need to test the other versions also
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/171-minolta-135mm-f28 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
!Karen
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 837
Location: Belgium Baby
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
!Karen wrote:
Good overview!
Today I am testing my 28mm minolta lenses!
- mc 28 f3,5
- md 28 f3,5
- mc 28 f2,5
_________________
FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
The MD 3.5 is a nice little lens . Some CA in the corners but easy to correct in PP. It works very well with the A7.
Its problem: it is ridiculously cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
| !Karen wrote: |
...
Maybe a stupid question but is it so that MD lenses are better than their predecessor MC lenses? Or is this not always thecase? I am currently weeding out my collection, I have a lot of doubles MC-MD so it would save me a lot of time if I don't have to test them all side by side like this. |
In my experience: Often, but not always. My MD-II 35 f/2.8 is better than the MC-X W.Rokkor-HG. My MD-II 35 f/1.8 is a mixed bag compared to the MC W.Rokkor-HH: Less CA, but also slightly less resolution. Similar with the MD-I 50 f/1.4 and the MC-X Rokkor-PG: The MC shows minimally higher res but more CA.
_________________
http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| !Karen wrote: |
Good overview!
Today I am testing my 28mm minolta lenses!
- mc 28 f3,5
- md 28 f3,5
- mc 28 f2,5 |
I put my two cents for the 2,5/28.
The best minolta 28 for my taste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| VLR wrote: |
| !Karen wrote: |
...
Maybe a stupid question but is it so that MD lenses are better than their predecessor MC lenses? Or is this not always thecase? I am currently weeding out my collection, I have a lot of doubles MC-MD so it would save me a lot of time if I don't have to test them all side by side like this. |
In my experience: Often, but not always. My MD-II 35 f/2.8 is better than the MC-X W.Rokkor-HG. My MD-II 35 f/1.8 is a mixed bag compared to the MC W.Rokkor-HH: Less CA, but also slightly less resolution. Similar with the MD-I 50 f/1.4 and the MC-X Rokkor-PG: The MC shows minimally higher res but more CA. |
I agree with the 50/1,4.
With the 24/2,8 is a similar question.
My MC has better colors and contrast, the MD has less CA, and the borders are a bit, only a bit sharper.
Both are 9/7 formula, but different lenses, having the MD smaller
elements and less important building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| tb_a wrote: |
| papasito wrote: |
Contrast and resolving power let the MD be focus easily.
I note more ca in the MD images. The same With mine.
MD is a nice lens. but that CA..... |
It's just 1 click in Adobe Camera Raw to remove the purple fringing. |
Yes Thomas, you have the righ way.
But, in this forum where we speack about the lenses rendering, not only about what can we obtain with th image taken with it, it seems adecuate to know how do the lens resolve power, colors, contrast and aberrations.
Only to know better the lens. After take the pic, all the PP that each one like to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
| papasito wrote: |
But, in this forum where we speack about the lenses rendering, not only about what can we obtain with th image taken with it, it seems adecuate to know how do the lens resolve power, colors, contrast and aberrations.
Only to know better the lens. After take the pic, all the PP that each one like to do. |
You are certainly right. However, if the only issue is the purple fringing then I just mentioned an easy way to cope with it.
As you rightly said, that's the only real issue with this lens, though there are also sharper lenses around outside the Minolta MF world.
Still didn't compare all my 135mm lenses yet.....
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I have the very first one pictured at that site. Love it.
At f/2.8
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oh...you have the very first minolta 135/2,8 in sr Mount.
The minolta's collector dream the 7 element 135mm lens.
And by the way. a very good photo taker too.
Congrats and thanks for sharing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
| papasito wrote: |
Oh...you have the very first minolta 135/2,8 in sr Mount.
The minolta's collector dream the 7 element 135mm lens.
And by the way. a very good photo taker too.
Congrats and thanks for sharing. |
No, not the first one, the first one pictured.
MINOLTA 135mm 1: 2.8 (6 lenses / 5 members)
Versions: SR-II
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 270
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
| !Karen wrote: |
Yep difference is small
I did find MD way easier to focus at large apartures. For some reason the focus peaking is much clearer and you can instantly tell in the viewfinder/screen when it 'snaps' perfectly into focus. I only had to take one shot.
For the MC I had to shoot different photos with each time a tiny focus change so that I could pick the best one on my PC. |
This is a very good example of how early MC Rokkors tend to differ from early MD Rokkors wide open and 1f stop further.The MDs are sharper overall and more evenly across the frame.Their corner sharpness catches up quicker with the center,but the center often does not reach the resolution of the MCs.MDs have warmer colour rendition,and better contrast,but images are less crisp somehow and have harsher OOF blurr.
After stopping by 2 f stops,pictures are very difficult to be told apart,save the bokeh.This is very often true with other focal lengths either.
_________________
shapencolour |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| papasito wrote: |
Oh...you have the very first minolta 135/2,8 in sr Mount.
The minolta's collector dream the 7 element 135mm lens.
And by the way. a very good photo taker too.
Congrats and thanks for sharing. |
No, not the first one, the first one pictured.
MINOLTA 135mm 1: 2.8 (6 lenses / 5 members)
Versions: SR-II |
Oh..I'm sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
