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

Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:49 pm    Post subject: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
As we can see in the net, the Minolta Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 have the same formula-

Both 6/5, with the frontal 4/3 elements like the Primoplan lenses and the rear ones 2/2 like the Biometar.

Anybody knows if keep similarity in rendering between them?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
As we can see in the net, the Minolta Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 have the same formula-

Both 6/5, with the frontal 4/3 elements like the Primoplan lenses and the rear ones 2/2 like the Biometar.

Anybody knows if keep similarity in rendering between them?


I can take a few images tomorrow, with MC-I 2/100mm vs MC-I 2.8/135mm lenses.

S


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
As we can see in the net, the Minolta Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 have the same formula-

Both 6/5, with the frontal 4/3 elements like the Primoplan lenses and the rear ones 2/2 like the Biometar.

Anybody knows if keep similarity in rendering between them?


I can take a few images tomorrow, with MC-I 2/100mm vs MC-I 2.8/135mm lenses.

S


Will love to see how the 100mm/2 renders.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:

Will love to see how the 100mm/2 renders.


Here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/466-bokeh-mc-1-7-85mm-md-2-85mm-ar-mc-2-100mm-mc-2-5-100mm-md-2-5-100mm

The guy on the photos is a Minolta afficiado, too ... when he brought his recently acquired Auto Rokkor 2/100mm we decided to run a quick test Wink. Only later I bought my own MC-I 2/100mm (basically the same lens as the Auto Rokkor). Strange enough, the AR / MC 2/100mm is the only vintage Minolta lens I know which mechanically is not well built. Quite easy to damage; the focus ring is so thin that focusing gets "stiff" when you grip the lens firmly while focusing !!

S


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had for 3 or 4 years the rokkor MC 100/2.

I sold it and was a great mistake.

From f/4 is a gem.

Only one con I found, the old coated made the rendering of the skin at sunlight had a red border with luminous color.

My copy (mint) has strong loCA and some lateral one.

At f/ 4,8 the CA is very reduced. From f/8-11 is gone

Sharp enought to make very atractive portrait at shade or in the studio.

I want to know if the PF 135/2,8 can give me similar image quality

Last edited by papasito on Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:02 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
As we can see in the net, the Minolta Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 have the same formula-

Both 6/5, with the frontal 4/3 elements like the Primoplan lenses and the rear ones 2/2 like the Biometar.

Anybody knows if keep similarity in rendering between them?


I can take a few images tomorrow, with MC-I 2/100mm vs MC-I 2.8/135mm lenses.

S


Thank you very much. Will be very apreciated


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:56 am    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
vivaldibow wrote:

Will love to see how the 100mm/2 renders.


Here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/466-bokeh-mc-1-7-85mm-md-2-85mm-ar-mc-2-100mm-mc-2-5-100mm-md-2-5-100mm

The guy on the photos is a Minolta afficiado, too ... when he brought his recently acquired Auto Rokkor 2/100mm we decided to run a quick test Wink. Only later I bought my own MC-I 2/100mm (basically the same lens as the Auto Rokkor). Strange enough, the AR / MC 2/100mm is the only vintage Minolta lens I know which mechanically is not well built. Quite easy to damage; the focus ring is so thin that focusing gets "stiff" when you grip the lens firmly while focusing !!

S

Appreciate the comparison. I would say all are very good to my eyes!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Rokkor MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Strange enough, the AR / MC 2/100mm is the only vintage Minolta lens I know which mechanically is not well built. Quite easy to damage; the focus ring is so thin that focusing gets "stiff" when you grip the lens firmly while focusing !!

S


Yep, I took mine apart and the depth of field scale piece is also paper-thin. It could be easily crushed or damaged. It's also one of the most frustrating to disassemble with one of the large pieces reverse-threaded, but it is tightened so well that I thought the main body was all one piece.

I had the Auto Tele Rokkor PG 7/5 before and thought the rendering was pretty similar. A really nice lens but I had no use for it when I got the 100/2 and sold it. It is the same except the 2nd last element becomes bi-concave with a bi-convex element cemented on its rear.
Interestingly, the description was reduced after the change to 6/5, losing these statements: "Both lenses are designed to have least flare, having non-decreased corner brightness. Telephoto lenses of this focal length are said to have disadvantages of less resolving power in close-up shots, because of the transition of focal plane caused by spherical aberration. These two [the other is the Tele Rokkor TC 135mm F4) Rokkor lenses are designed on this point, and no decrease in the resolving power is visible even at the minimum distance of 1.5 meters."

About the 100mm F2, it is written that "The spherical aberration of this lens is extremely corrected. The chromatic aberration is also extremely small, hence the resolving power is excellent."

The 100mm F2 RRP was 24,200 JPY and the MC-I 135/2.8 PF was 20,400 JPY. In 1959 the 135/2.8 PG was 30,000 JPY, which was equivalent to 48,800 JPY in 1969. Obviously the value of this lens decreased significantly as the Minolta SR system progressed and newer, larger telephoto lenses and ultra-fast wide-angles became the gold-standard for higher pricing.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found, in the Koji page again, a intreresting test of some minolta lenses, among them, of the MC PF 100/2 and 135/2,8.

In it, the rendering of both lenses are very similar.

As it usually happens, with sigle coated lenses the better rendering is at F/11 - 16



#1


#2
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/202010/big_8750_koji_minolta_2_1.jpg]
[/url]

Old test, made in 1967, but not less true for this


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nothing about the coating will change diffraction - it is only aperture dependant. It may be sharpest at F11 or F16 on the best black and white or colour positive film of the 1960's but the sharpest aperture today will depend on what camera you are using: sensor size/pixel pitch etc. Besides, we must shoot at a reasonable shutter speed and reduce vibrations to even have a chance at getting a high image sharpness, which naturally means shooting at wider apertures. Film grain today is much finer which means diffraction will become noticeable much sooner.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
Nothing about the coating will change diffraction - it is only aperture dependant. It may be sharpest at F11 or F16 on the best black and white or colour positive film of the 1960's but the sharpest aperture today will depend on what camera you are using: sensor size/pixel pitch etc. Besides, we must shoot at a reasonable shutter speed and reduce vibrations to even have a chance at getting a high image sharpness, which naturally means shooting at wider apertures. Film grain today is much finer which means diffraction will become noticeable much sooner.


when I used my Nex 5N with MC PF 100/2, usually at F/4, found that at the center, the higher central resolution power were at F/6,3 and at the whole image, I found it to my eyes at near F/11.

I don`t know why, if the technology of the sensor of the 5N let the lens rendering was near the produced with films of the 60's, or my eyes weren't so sherp to determinated the correct sharpness at wider apertures.

The same with some lenses, like tessar (and Skopar, Ysarex, xenar, color solinar, etc) 2,8/50 mm, Voigtlander Super Dynarex 135/4, Dynarex 90/3,4, and for my surprise the Summicron R 2/50 V,1 and the M v.3 were sharper in the center at F/8 (not at F/4 like the summicron M 50/2 v.1)-

I don't know why, and you are probably right. But I had that experience.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First pic taken with the MC PF 135/2,8 MC II at F/5,6


#1


Almost the same rendering that the MCII 100/2

As you know, not PP
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1