| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:14 pm Post subject: Topcor vs Minolta vs Kaleinar 100mm |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
A comparison of bokeh and center sharpness between the following lenses:
- Topcor RE 100mm f/2.8
- Minolta MC 100mm f/2.5
- Kaleinar 5H 100mm f/2.8
Camera: Sony A7RII
 comparison28 by devoscasper, on Flickr
 comparison4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
 comparison56 by devoscasper, on Flickr
 comparison8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Conclusion:
Performance of the three lenses is remarkably comparable, at least in this test.
Wide open, the Kaleinar seems a bit sharper in the center than the other competitors. It shows a bit of sawtooth bokeh @ f/4, whereas the others do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7581
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
All are good performers!
_________________
The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| calvin83 wrote: |
All are good performers! |
Yes, they are.
I read a few reviews on the web that the Kaleinar gets sharp only from f/4 on, but I have to disagree: it's sharp wide open.
Of course there could be sample variation (or more likely, the inability to focus properly  ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pabeu
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pabeu wrote:
Very insightful test. How would you judge them in terms of microcontrast?
Thanks a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 885
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Thank you for the test. I am confused by the terms Minolta MC last version. Is it MC or MDII MDIII (five elements)?
_________________
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 |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| Thank you for the test. I am confused by the terms Minolta MC last version. Is it MC or MDII MDIII (five elements)? |
MC five elements. So with MD lens scheme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| pabeu wrote: |
Very insightful test. How would you judge them in terms of microcontrast?
Thanks a lot. |
I think all three lenses are pretty good in that regard. The flower is actually a pretty good subject IMO to determine this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 1636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
It's hard to choose a favorite, good output from all 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11053
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Thank you for all that effort!
The out-of-focus highlight top-center in the last two wide open examples are hexagons?:
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
Thank you for all that effort!
The out-of-focus highlight top-center in the last two wide open examples are hexagons?:
|
Those are @f/4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11053
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RokkorDoctor
Joined: 27 Nov 2021
Posts: 1428
Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| Thank you for the test. I am confused by the terms Minolta MC last version. Is it MC or MDII MDIII (five elements)? |
MC five elements. So with MD lens scheme. |
For the benefit of those not too familiar with the Minolta SR mount: there were 7 versions of this lens.
Summarised from Dennis Lohmann's site:
1968 - MC-I - 6/5
1970 - MC-II - 6/5
1973 - MC-X - 6/5
1976 - MC-X - 5/5
1977 - MD-I - 5/5
1978 - MD-II - 5/5
1981 - MD-III - 5/5
The first 6 had a screw-in dedicated metal lens hood, the last MD-III had a unique 2-section telescopic built-in metal hood
The first MC-I version has a finer helicoid thread and it is difficult to lubricate this lens; it requires a compromise between focus feel and grease stability. More prone to oil on the aperture blades than the later versions.
More details can be found on Dennis Lohmann's site:
http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/
_________________
Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
OK, now lets compare the corners. Usually here the differences show. Camera used: Sony A7RII
First wide open:
 conrnercomp28 by devoscasper, on Flickr
I actually re-checked the camera settings to confirm that the image of the Minolta was actually shot wide open. Near perfect corner performance, incredible. Topcor second, Kaleinar last.
 cornercomp4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
 cornercomp56 by devoscasper, on Flickr
@ f/5.6 the corners op the Topcor become pretty good, definitely usable for landscapes, but not yet on the level of the Minolta. The Kaleinar not so strong.
 cornercomp8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
@f/8, the difference between the Topcor and Minolta becomes smaller. The Kaleinar corners are not bad, but not on the same level as the Topcor or the Minolta.
 cornercomp11 by devoscasper, on Flickr
@f/11: same conclusions as @ f/8
Conclusion after doing the two tests: the three lenses have comparable center performance and equally pleasing bokeh. As landscape lenses on a hi-res FF camera, the Minolta steals the show with incredible sharpness throughout the frame, already @ f/2.5. The Topcor is great as well stopped down; the Kaleinar less so and is more of a dedicated portrait lens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 885
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
If you have a FD 100 2,8 in a drawer please throw in the comparison. I think it is a pretty good lens.
_________________
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 |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| If you have a FD 100 2,8 in a drawer please throw in the comparison. I think it is a pretty good lens. |
Unfortunately I haven't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
Incredible from the Minolta indeed. The Topcor performance is in line with old resolution tests. Center strong from wide open and corner performer weaker at f/2.8 and f/4 making a significant jump by f/5.6 and peeking at f/8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| If you have a FD 100 2,8 in a drawer please throw in the comparison. I think it is a pretty good lens. |
I would assume it should be at least as good as 85mm 1.8 FD S.S.C. , or better. I like canon's 8 blades when closing down the aperture , it seems , not to many are bothered by this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| cbass wrote: |
| Incredible from the Minolta indeed. The Topcor performance is in line with old resolution tests. Center strong from wide open and corner performer weaker at f/2.8 and f/4 making a significant jump by f/5.6 and peeking at f/8. |
Also, the Minolta 100/2.5 is quite affordable. It seems everybody is focusing on the MD 85/2. The 100mm has better bokeh IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| If you have a FD 100 2,8 in a drawer please throw in the comparison. I think it is a pretty good lens. |
I would assume it should be at least as good as 85mm 1.8 FD S.S.C. , or better. I like canon's 8 blades when closing down the aperture , it seems , not to many are bothered by this issue. |
True, it’s maybe the only ‘weak’ point of the Minolta. On the other hand, it’s perfectly usable wide open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018
Posts: 661
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2023 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alun Thomas wrote:
Slightly O/T I tested a few of my longer fast lenses ahead of my youngest daughters graduation ceremony. In the 200mm range I have a Vivitar S1 200/3, a Soligor C/D (Tokina) 200/2.8, a Cambron (Sun) 200/ 2.8 and a Minolta MDIII 200/2.8. I only tested center performance wide open, anticipating operating in a darkened hall. The difference from the Minolta to the third party lenses was even more stark than that shown above. It's a fairly good lens. Unfortunately I don't own equivalent lenses from the other top manufacturers of the time to compare.
In the 135mm range I tested a Topcon 135/2, a Komura 135/2, a Samigon (YS mount probably Sigma) 135/1.8, a Spiratone 135/1.8 (Itoh Kogaku by my estimation), a Sigma XQ 135/1.8 and a Soligor C/D (Tokina) 135/2. The clear best was the Soligor Tokina Lens, but not near as good as the Minolta.
I'll need a helper to carry a second bag with a Topcon 300/2.8, as tested today the resolution and contrast wide open are nothing short of a revelation, especially considering the year of first release for that lens. The center IQ was basically close to as good as the Minolta 200mm lens.
The Minolta lens was also my first ever manual focus lens buy, looking back an excellent choice, and the start of a slippery road to ruin... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2023 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| Alun Thomas wrote: |
Slightly O/T I tested a few of my longer fast lenses ahead of my youngest daughters graduation ceremony. In the 200mm range I have a Vivitar S1 200/3, a Soligor C/D (Tokina) 200/2.8, a Cambron (Sun) 200/ 2.8 and a Minolta MDIII 200/2.8. I only tested center performance wide open, anticipating operating in a darkened hall. The difference from the Minolta to the third party lenses was even more stark than that shown above. It's a fairly good lens. Unfortunately I don't own equivalent lenses from the other top manufacturers of the time to compare.
In the 135mm range I tested a Topcon 135/2, a Komura 135/2, a Samigon (YS mount probably Sigma) 135/1.8, a Spiratone 135/1.8 (Itoh Kogaku by my estimation), a Sigma XQ 135/1.8 and a Soligor C/D (Tokina) 135/2. The clear best was the Soligor Tokina Lens, but not near as good as the Minolta.
I'll need a helper to carry a second bag with a Topcon 300/2.8, as tested today the resolution and contrast wide open are nothing short of a revelation, especially considering the year of first release for that lens. The center IQ was basically close to as good as the Minolta 200mm lens.
The Minolta lens was also my first ever manual focus lens buy, looking back an excellent choice, and the start of a slippery road to ruin... |
Yeah, Minolta lenses are usually among my favorites, think of the MD 35/2.8, 100/2.5, 75-150/4. Mamiya has also excellent and affordable lenses, especially the series for the 645 system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2023 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| If you have a FD 100 2,8 in a drawer please throw in the comparison. I think it is a pretty good lens. |
Found this comparison on Stephan´s website, including the Canon:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/663-100mm-lenses-canon-fd-minolta-mc-md-af-nikon
It does a pretty good job! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2023 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Now let's see how good the Minolta holds up against the much more modern and very well regarded Canon EF 100mm f/2:
 Comparison by devoscasper, on Flickr
The Canon shows already very good performance across the frame from wide open. There are some CA's in the corners.
From f/2.5 / f/2.8, the Minolta holds up really good against the Canon. Remarkable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Shriver
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2023 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
John Shriver wrote:
The Topcor is known for field curvature (see Camera:35 review). I suspect if you focus for the corner, it will be sharper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3217
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2023 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| John Shriver wrote: |
| The Topcor is known for field curvature (see Camera:35 review). I suspect if you focus for the corner, it will be sharper. |
I bet you're right. It still doesn't do too bad though, considering this is on a 42+ mp sensor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
