View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I did not succeed leaving a comment on your site so I grab the opportunity to thank you for the excellent presentation of so many interesting lenses. Actually you did influence a lot of my purchases and I am grateful for that. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
tf wrote: |
Oh yes! That's the landscape
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As promised - comparison of this MD 75-150/4 vs. MD 85/2 vs MD 135/2.8
Unbelievable[/img] |
This is a really nice lens, I have to use mine more often. Thank you for your detailed review.
I have an old Amateur Photography Magazine test of this particular lens. Does anyone want to see it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
I did not succeed leaving a comment on your site so I grab the opportunity to thank you for the excellent presentation of so many interesting lenses. Actually you did influence a lot of my purchases and I am grateful for that. |
Thank you for reading and for kind words ))
(about comments, I'm not sure what went wrong.. Site settings are: "Comment author must fill out name and e-mail", it should be enough. Additionally - this site is on the WordPress.com platform, any registered in this system user can write comments. Sorry for that problem..)
keysersoeze wrote: |
I have an old Amateur Photography Magazine test of this particular lens. Does anyone want to see it? |
I'm. Of course. Please |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
tf wrote: |
lumens pixel wrote: |
I did not succeed leaving a comment on your site so I grab the opportunity to thank you for the excellent presentation of so many interesting lenses. Actually you did influence a lot of my purchases and I am grateful for that. |
Thank you for reading and for kind words ))
(about comments, I'm not sure what went wrong.. Site settings are: "Comment author must fill out name and e-mail", it should be enough. Additionally - this site is on the WordPress.com platform, any registered in this system user can write comments. Sorry for that problem..) |
Offtopic: I've actually had the same problem. All fields are populated, and it posts somewhere, just never shows up.
To be brief, I wanted to pitch an idea of 100mm battle: MD 100/2.5 vs Canon 100/2.8 vs Zuiko 100/2.8.
There seem to be very little interest towards 100mm on the web overall, and to my best knowledge no such comparison is known to exist. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
tf wrote: |
keysersoeze wrote: |
I have an old Amateur Photography Magazine test of this particular lens. Does anyone want to see it? |
I'm. Of course. Please |
Allright, I will scan it for you! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
keysersoeze wrote: |
tf wrote: |
keysersoeze wrote: |
I have an old Amateur Photography Magazine test of this particular lens. Does anyone want to see it? |
I'm. Of course. Please |
Allright, I will scan it for you! |
If it could be added here it would be great.
Thank you |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
keysersoeze wrote: |
Allright, I will scan it for you! |
Thanks in advance!
aidaho wrote: |
I wanted to pitch an idea of 100mm battle: MD 100/2.5 vs Canon 100/2.8 vs Zuiko 100/2.8 |
I've understood the idea and interested too.
Going to hunt for Canon and Zuiko ))
(but, tests for more than 20 reviews (mostly Rokkors MCII) are in queue for this season, so, 100mm battle will be created, but not soon..) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
tf wrote: |
I've understood the idea and interested too.
Going to hunt for Canon and Zuiko ))
(but, tests for more than 20 reviews (mostly Rokkors MCII) are in queue for this season, so, 100mm battle will be created, but not soon..) |
I totally understand. It's a hell of a lot of work to do these.
Thank you very much for the effort. Also, I dig the anime presentation
About MC-II: I have a 58/1.4 and 55/1.7.
Spoiler alert: you are going to love the latter _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
To be brief, I wanted to pitch an idea of 100mm battle: MD 100/2.5 vs Canon 100/2.8 vs Zuiko 100/2.8.
There seem to be very little interest towards 100mm on the web overall, and to my best knowledge no such comparison is known to exist. |
I've got the MD 100mm/F2.5 as well but nothing from Canon or Olympus for comparison.
Nonetheless, the Minolta is a stunning lens and highly recommended, clearly outperforming the A7R II 42MP sensor. I really doubt that there will be many lenses, if at all, which are able to beat it.
I would be able to do a comparison with some other 100mm lenses from my collection, but I know already now that it will be the winner. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
aidaho wrote: |
To be brief, I wanted to pitch an idea of 100mm battle: MD 100/2.5 vs Canon 100/2.8 vs Zuiko 100/2.8.
There seem to be very little interest towards 100mm on the web overall, and to my best knowledge no such comparison is known to exist. |
I've got the MD 100mm/F2.5 as well but nothing from Canon or Olympus for comparison.
Nonetheless, the Minolta is a stunning lens and highly recommended, clearly outperforming the A7R II 42MP sensor. I really doubt that there will be many lenses, if at all, which are able to beat it.
I would be able to do a comparison with some other 100mm lenses from my collection, but I know already now that it will be the winner. |
The MC 100/2 is, by far, better.
This lens (F/2) is almost magic.
Very, very sharp from F/3,5. Colours, contrast, a real dream.
Con? Yes, the CA wide open. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote: |
The MC 100/2 is, by far, better.
This lens (F/2) is almost magic.
Very, very sharp from F/3,5. Colours, contrast, a real dream.
Con? Yes, the CA wide open. |
Really? Maybe it has some "magic" when used for portraits but overall the MD 100/2.5 is simply sharper with lesser CA's and lesser vignette.
Therefore to state that the very old MC is the better lens can only be based on your personal taste or opinion. I wouldn't change my lens to the old one. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
Also, I dig the anime presentation
About MC-II: I have a 58/1.4 and 55/1.7.
Spoiler alert: you are going to love the latter |
A lens-review is just an excuse to talk about anime )))
I already have a few samples from 55/1.7 and after the first look - it is definitely underrated lens, hope to see results from 58/1.4 soon too
papasito wrote: |
The MC 100/2 is, by far, better. |
Nope.. This lens has quite average IQ, and I'm sure that MD 100/2.5 is better in all aspects from technical point of view. But I didn't get 100/2, so it's just my feeling after looking of samples and reviews in internet - this lens interested because of the rendering, not because sharpness |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
Nonetheless, the Minolta is a stunning lens and highly recommended, clearly outperforming the A7R II 42MP sensor. I really doubt that there will be many lenses, if at all, which are able to beat it. |
I know.
Unfortunately, New MD 100/2.5 climbed in price too steeply for me to follow.
Previous versions can still be had for a reasonable price, although their weight defies an idea of a compact 100mm.
Actually if one is willing to take both hits: weight and size from MC 100/2.5 and the price from the NMD 100/2.5, Canon FDn 100/2 is now within an arms reach, and says hello. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
Unfortunately, New MD 100/2.5 climbed in price too steeply for me to follow. |
Versions MD I and II are optically identical (5/5) and may be available cheaper. The only difference of version MD III aka New MD is the reduction to 49mm filter thread and the inbuilt shade. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
The only difference of version MD III aka New MD is the reduction to 49mm filter thread and the inbuilt shade. |
My 5 cents:
MDIII has a slightly different shapes of elements, it can be seen on optical design schemes in Minolta book (Japan, so I don't know correct name, but it well known materials about Minolta history before the Konica alliance).
Also, a some years ago I had MDII 100/2.5 and made a few tests to compare it with MDIII - I found that corners of MDIII is better and sold MDII. It was before then the site has been started, so, I haven't proof.
I just want to say - even very similar lenses can have a different IQ, and it would be better to compare MDII and MDIII again - a difference has the chance to be spotted |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
I’m not familiar with this lens, having little experience with Minolta in general. Most of my “formative years” were spent with Pentax and Nikon, with a few 3rd party lens brands thrown in for good measure.
In fact, I have a Nikon 75-150/3.5 Series E lens, which I like very much.
Does anyone know how they compare? _________________ The longer I use autofocus lenses,
The greater my preference for manual focus grows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
tf wrote: |
keysersoeze wrote: |
Allright, I will scan it for you! |
Thanks in advance!
|
Here you go:
[/url] _________________ www.instagram.com/goodolglass |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
tf wrote: |
tb_a wrote: |
The only difference of version MD III aka New MD is the reduction to 49mm filter thread and the inbuilt shade. |
My 5 cents:
MDIII has a slightly different shapes of elements, it can be seen on optical design schemes in Minolta book (Japan, so I don't know correct name, but it well known materials about Minolta history before the Konica alliance).
Also, a some years ago I had MDII 100/2.5 and made a few tests to compare it with MDIII - I found that corners of MDIII is better and sold MDII. It was before then the site has been started, so, I haven't proof.
I just want to say - even very similar lenses can have a different IQ, and it would be better to compare MDII and MDIII again - a difference has the chance to be spotted |
I agree with you, the optical design is slightly different and the coatings are absolutely different. I used the MDII 100/2.5. I don't like it. The focus throw is nearly 330 degrees. Too long for my taste. The coatings are really poor. The MDIII version has newer coatings.
I compared the MDII to the Zuiko 100mm 1:2.8. I like the Zuiko more because it is more contrasty and a little bit sharper than the Minolta wide open in the center. But unfortunately the Zuiko suffers more from CA. _________________ www.instagram.com/goodolglass |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
keysersoeze wrote: |
I compared the MDII to the Zuiko 100mm 1:2.8. I like the Zuiko more because it is more contrasty and a little bit sharper than the Minolta wide open in the center. But unfortunately the Zuiko suffers more from CA. |
Very interesting to hear!
I've recently acquired Zuiko 100/2.8 and given how similar my impression is to yours, I gather my rating of MDII would've been the same.
This means in the segment "tiny affordable 100/2.8 with canon-style focus direction" there seem to be just two competitors: canon and zuiko.
My Canon 100/2.8 lost rather dramatically in wide open resolution to Zuiko, but Canon was damaged.
Stopped down Canon had none of it and confidently outperformed Zuiko.
I suspect the coatings and colors on Canon are better, but I defer this judgment until at least late spring, when there are strong reflections and colors around to speak of.
Bokeh is slightly better with Zuiko, and in front bokeh Zuiko is very well may be the king of the compact 100mm.
I think I should give a Canon one more chance with an excellent copy.
Its a somewhat annoying lens though: no adjustable infinity stop, poor front-bokeh, 6 blades while pretty much any other canon can boast 8. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
My Canon is sharp WO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
keysersoeze wrote: |
Here you go:
|
Thank you a lot!
I'm going to save it in my notes, but one more question - can I post it on site if such idea come later? (with link to your nickname) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
tf wrote: |
keysersoeze wrote: |
Here you go:
|
Thank you a lot!
I'm going to save it in my notes, but one more question - can I post it on site if such idea come later? (with link to your nickname) |
Sure, no problem! I believe I also have one of the 24-35 and 50/2. I can share them with you if you want _________________ www.instagram.com/goodolglass |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keysersoeze
Joined: 19 Sep 2018 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keysersoeze wrote:
_________________ www.instagram.com/goodolglass |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
keysersoeze wrote: |
Sure, no problem! I believe I also have one of the 24-35 and 50/2. I can share them with you if you want |
Big thanks ! Nice materials, I think I'll repost it in one of the next articles.. just not soon may be |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Most helpful information for very interesting lenses. Thanks to all.
However I really do not need all the noise about how good the MD 100 2,5 is. I am still convincing myself I do not need it since I own the 85 F2,0, the 75-150 and the Canon 100 2,8.
The difference between 85 and 100 does look like one step forward? Right?
Oh wait! I just also bought the 70-210 F4.
Help me please. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|