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

Three good 100mm lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, was hoping to hear from MIR sine he knows about my lenses, but I'll answer the riddle.

First I will provide some background and personal impressions. I generally get a certain feel for a lens after first reviewing results. Some few lenses I have really impress me with their results, which I've found may not be the same when doing these side by side comparisons. That's why I give much more consideration to actual use and results.

I left out the names, as I said, to not influence the assessment based on preconceived values. I myself am disappointed because I would have ranked these lenses differently, at least in terms of sharpness, until doing this comparison. Although I will say that I'm not surprised at the bokeh being smoother from number three, as others have also pointed out.

The lens I sidelined is a Meyer Orestor, but the later version with fewer blades and funky stop down button. Although I got it in mint condition, it soon after stopped opening fully. Time for a repair. However, I was very impressed with its sharpness wide open and throughout the aperture scale.

The lenses in the test are, in order, Kalejnar, RE Topcor, and Meyer Orestor. The Orestor is the earlier preset version that I most recently acquired in mint condition. The Kalejnar is very good condition and the Topcor had servicing to clean.

I would have predicted the Topcor to outperform, thus my surprise and disappointment. The Meyer did not surprise me by having the smoother bokeh. The Kalejnar had always impressed me as being very sharp. I had recently compared Kalejnar with Topcor in a quick couple of snaps, and thought I saw more sharpness out of Kalejnar. This test confirmed. So I guess based on my experience with those two lenses, I was more disappointed than surprised. Disappointed only because I have such a high opinion of Topcor.

I have, in addition to the Diaplan, three other 100mm lenses. A Pentor, Aragon, and Sonnar T*. I suspect the first two are identical lenses, but the Sonnar is f/3.5, so was not included.

When the other Orestor gets fixed, I will want to repeat this exercise for my own benefit and will post results again here if others would like to see a second round. Perhaps any minor focusing differences will average out. I am prediction the sharpest to be between the newer Orestor and the Kalejnar. I'm also wondering if the optics in the two Orestor styles are interchangeable, which I would consider to get the best optical together with the many bladed diaphragm.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real life pictures from the lenses...

Kalejnar




Topcor




Orestor (Just got it - not many images to choose from)




Sidelined Orestor




PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great shots! The fiddle head fern is my favorite. Of the three lenses you tested, I have just the Topcor - a fine performer by any standard - interesting how it fared in this grouping - that Kaleinar looks like a fine lens. After reading your post, I did a quick inventory of my 100's - only a few of them are faster than f/ 3.5 - one is a Vivitar and the other is a Trioplan - soon to return from service by Marc Jensen - so I really can't complain Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great shots! The fiddle head fern is my favorite. Of the three lenses you tested, I have just the Topcor - a fine performer by any standard - interesting how it fared in this grouping - that Kaleinar looks like a fine lens. After reading your post, I did a quick inventory of my 100's - only a few of them are faster than f/ 3.5 - one is a Vivitar and the other is a Trioplan - soon to return from service by Marc Jensen - so I really can't complain Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The last group of photos is excellent. Every shot is a winner, IMO. And I'm not familiar with any of those lenses -- I haven't even seen one before. If it isn't Japanese or German (as in Leitz and Zeiss), then I'm usually pretty ignorant.

The 100mm focal length is one I'm rather soft in. I have a hodgepodge consisting of three macros and a portrait lens: a Tamron SP 90/2.5 macro, a Canon FD 100/4 macro, a SMC-Tak 100/4 macro, and a 105/2.5 Nikkor.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of the three lenses you tested I only own the Kaleinar. I fully agree with your evaluation of that lens. One additional lens you might want to test is the Konica Hexanon AR 2.8/100.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pdccameras wrote:
Interesting comparison.

As almost everyone else has stated, all three are very close.

In my opinion, #3 has the smoothest, most pleasant bokeh. All other points of comparison such as differences in sharpness, contrast, CA, etc. are all within the limits for which a little benign post processing would easily mask completely.
My guess is that these are all cooke-triplet derived designs with some level of spherical aberration left uncorrected.

P.


Triplet, no way. Orestor has chunky glued elements (Sonnar?) behind first front element.
This fatso is responsible for smooth bokeh. Kaleinar isn't that fat. Word "fat" having superlative connotation.

Orestor:



Kaleinar:


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Orestor has the same schema as the Meyer/Pentacon 2.8/135:



The CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 is broadly similar:



So the Meyer lenses are not Sonnars, but they can be called Sonnar types.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woodrim,

thanks for that very informative thread which surprised me to a large extent.

The Kaleinar is obviously one lens which I should also consider to acquire. It fit's in my overall impression of the quality of the Russian lenses which I rate as rather high. So far I luckily got always only very good copies and I never ever had any problem with those lenses up to now. Some of them are really exceptional good and still the best you can get for your money.

I was already considering the servicing of my defective Orestor (obviously the similar problem like you mentioned before with your copy, most likely the lubricant issue) when I saw Nordentro's pictures recently published here. However, as I also have the Topcor lens which is also in need of some CLA activities I can certainly safe the money for the reactivation of this lens as obviously the rather low optical quality does not justify any further investment in this lens.

I would have guessed exactly the opposite before and expected the Topcor to be superior to the Orestor.

Anyway, it's somehow a "happy end" for me as the Orestor (M42) is usable on all of my cameras incl. FF and the Topcor (Exakta) is only limited to my mirrorless crop sensor cameras.

Any experience out of your planned CLA activity for the Orestor would be highly welcome too. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Pancolart"]
pdccameras wrote:
Interesting comparison.

As almost everyone else has stated, all three are very close.

In my opinion, #3 has the smoothest, most pleasant bokeh. All other points of comparison such as differences in sharpness, contrast, CA, etc. are all within the limits for which a little benign post processing would easily mask completely.
My guess is that these are all cooke-triplet derived designs with some level of spherical aberration left uncorrected.

P.


Triplet, no way. Orestor has chunky glued elements (Sonnar?) behind first front element.
This fatso is responsible for smooth bokeh. Kaleinar isn't that fat. Word "fat" having superlative connotation.



Yup, I blew that one - all three of Woodrim's lenses are 5-element "Sonnar" types of the Primoplan variety developed by Roeshlein and Schafter. The Topcor may be a little different, but it is definitely a 5-element lens..

There are many here who know more about this than I, but isn't the Sonnar design derived from the Cooke triplet - so perhaps some of its character, especially relating to bokeh may be due to some amount of under corrected spherical aberration? Just curious.



PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pdccameras wrote:
isn't the Sonnar design derived from the Cooke triplet - so perhaps some of its character, especially relating to bokeh may be due to some amount of under corrected spherical aberration? J


Yes and yes.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pdccameras wrote:

Yup, I blew that one - all three of Woodrim's lenses are 5-element "Sonnar" types of the Primoplan variety developed by Roeshlein and Schafter. The Topcor may be a little different, but it is definitely a 5-element lens..

There are many here who know more about this than I, but isn't the Sonnar design derived from the Cooke triplet - so perhaps some of its character, especially relating to bokeh may be due to some amount of under corrected spherical aberration? Just curious.
[/url]

We have some information in the old thread by no-X. You may take a look at it.
http://forum.mflenses.com/list-of-lens-diagrams-triplets-planars-and-hybrid-lenses-t22934.html


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
JJB wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that # 3 might be a Meyer-Gorlitz?


Such a smart lady. But she also had the advantage of hearing me brag about the recent purchase Smile


Yes, but you have so many to choose from, it's hard to keep them straight! Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ian and Calvin - great info.

P.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:

We have some information in the old thread by no-X. You may take a look at it.
http://forum.mflenses.com/list-of-lens-diagrams-triplets-planars-and-hybrid-lenses-t22934.html


Great info, thank you.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Woodrim,

thanks for that very informative thread which surprised me to a large extent.

The Kaleinar is obviously one lens which I should also consider to acquire. It fit's in my overall impression of the quality of the Russian lenses which I rate as rather high. So far I luckily got always only very good copies and I never ever had any problem with those lenses up to now. Some of them are really exceptional good and still the best you can get for your money.

I was already considering the servicing of my defective Orestor (obviously the similar problem like you mentioned before with your copy, most likely the lubricant issue) when I saw Nordentro's pictures recently published here. However, as I also have the Topcor lens which is also in need of some CLA activities I can certainly safe the money for the reactivation of this lens as obviously the rather low optical quality does not justify any further investment in this lens.

I would have guessed exactly the opposite before and expected the Topcor to be superior to the Orestor.

Anyway, it's somehow a "happy end" for me as the Orestor (M42) is usable on all of my cameras incl. FF and the Topcor (Exakta) is only limited to my mirrorless crop sensor cameras.

Any experience out of your planned CLA activity for the Orestor would be highly welcome too. Wink


I think the Topcor is as worthy of repair as the Orestor. While my test showed a very tiny difference, the bigger learning is that the lenses are essentially equal. I have not used my Orestor enough to get a full appreciation, but have really enjoyed the Topcor. I posted real life results to reinforce how each lens performs wonderfully. While I do like the Kalejnar, its build quality is not as good as the Topcor, but that doesn't matter as long as they both keep working - and that can't be felt in the results. The Orestor benefits from being a preset aperture and having a wonderful round iris at all stops. I have not yet looked at minimum focus distances, but suspect they are close to one another.

My recommendation is to be happy with any one of these you might have and only collect the others if you're like me and just enjoy having them.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a really informative thread!

It prompted me to take a second look at my lenses, and I ended up finding a few more 100mm f/2.8's that I had forgotten about - including an Orestor. I didn't find a Kaleinar, but I did find an auto Vivitar in M42 and a Nikon series E.

Just for the heck of it. I shot a photo with each lens using Woodrim's methodology ( all shot on tripod on Sony A7 Mii at f/2.8 in aperture preferred auto, sunny white balance, no special in camera manipulation and resized without PP in CC2015). Here are the lenses in no particular order:




And here are the photos taken with them, again in no particular order. Can anyone spot the Orestor or the Topcor?

#1



#2



#3



#4




Enjoy!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thought I would make the game a little easier. Here is an impromptu resolution test of the above four lenses in the same order. 100% crops are provided below, again in the same order, 1,2,3,4.

#1



#2

[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20157/big_1817_DSC01287full_1.jpg]
[/url]

#3



#4




-------------------


#1 100%



#2 100%



#3 100%



#4 100%




All the best,

Paul


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you've just demonstrated the same thing - they're all basically the same. But I'll take a shot at it:

Nikon
Topcor
Vivitar
Meyer


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vivitar
Nikon
Topcor
Meyer


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for the test and awesome samples!

I have the topcor but not the others in this test, and a few other japanese like canon fd, nikon pentax. I like the topcor very much, but also the konica.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lenses in my test were ordered this way:

#1 - Orestor
#2 - Topcor
#3 - Nikkor
#4 - Vivitar

Woodrim put it most eloquently:

"My recommendation is to be happy with any one of these you might have and only collect the others if you're like me and just enjoy having them."


PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pdccameras wrote:
The lenses in my test were ordered this way:

#1 - Orestor
#2 - Topcor
#3 - Nikkor
#4 - Vivitar

Woodrim put it most eloquently:

"My recommendation is to be happy with any one of these you might have and only collect the others if you're like me and just enjoy having them."


Thanks for your comparison. However, I wasn't able to see any qualitative differences in your pictures as some critical circumstances have been missing to cause typical lens failures such as e.g. CA's like purple fringing. In other words, for non-critical situations they seem to perform totally equal.

I also liked Woodrim's statement very much. Wink