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 TC 135mm f/4 vs Rokkor PF 135mm f/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:50 am    Post subject: Rokkor TC 135mm f/4 vs Rokkor PF 135mm f/2.8 Reply with quote
Here is a new lens test, the dachshund lens test! So we have the TC, a preset triplet with the maximum aperture of f/4 vs the PF with a five element design and f/2.8.
What does these design differences mean when it comes to image quality? Lets take a look!
The rear element of the TC has some dirt on it that I couldn't remove completely since it's located deep in the barrel. But it probably did not affect the test.

The white balance is fixed, differences in color are due to the lenses. (only the static test)



First the TC f/4


TC f/8




PF f/2.8


PF f/8




100% crops. Even with a tripod it was hard to focus on the exact same spot. But focus is still within the 100% crop.

TC f/4


PF f/2.8


TC f/8


PF f/8



To complete a dachshund lens test a living subject is needed! Smile

TC wide open.








PF wide open





Conclusion: Both are good.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice. I have yet another version of that, the MD 135mm f/2.8. It's very good as well. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm concerned, did you freeze your dog in carbonite? /j


PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must say I like the rendering of the TC....


PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That PF was one of the best Minolta lenses I tested on m43. Surprising, for being such an old release, but with yellow WB. Now I use the 4/4 MC-X which seems quite rare - mine has white specks of (I presume) fungus on some of the internal elements, and cleaning marks on the front, but I couldn't find one since then, especially one in better condition.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
devinw wrote:
Nice. I have yet another version of that, the MD 135mm f/2.8. It's very good as well. Like 1 small


Is it the 4/4 version? It's supposed to be the top dog!

jamaeolus wrote:
I'm concerned, did you freeze your dog in carbonite? /j

jamaeolus wrote:
I must say I like the rendering of the TC....


Yes! unfortunately I need to sacrifice a dog for every time I do this. Twisted Evil

I agree, the grass bokeh in the background in the second shot looks nice.


Teemō wrote:
That PF was one of the best Minolta lenses I tested on m43. Surprising, for being such an old release, but with yellow WB. Now I use the 4/4 MC-X which seems quite rare - mine has white specks of (I presume) fungus on some of the internal elements, and cleaning marks on the front, but I couldn't find one since then, especially one in better condition.


Interesting that you like the PF, I like it so far but many seems to think it's a real dog. Maybe I will think so too after using more 135mm lenses, don't use that FL very often.


Pardon the puns Thank You Dog


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is the TC same construction like J11 or the original Zeiss Something 135/4?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
devinw wrote:
Nice. I have yet another version of that, the MD 135mm f/2.8. It's very good as well. Like 1 small


Is it the 4/4 version? It's supposed to be the top dog!



Yes! Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:



Teemō wrote:
That PF was one of the best Minolta lenses I tested on m43. Surprising, for being such an old release, but with yellow WB. Now I use the 4/4 MC-X which seems quite rare - mine has white specks of (I presume) fungus on some of the internal elements, and cleaning marks on the front, but I couldn't find one since then, especially one in better condition.


Interesting that you like the PF, I like it so far but many seems to think it's a real dog. Maybe I will think so too after using more 135mm lenses, don't use that FL very often.



I don't use 135mm that much at all - I have 100/2 instead (same optics), but I consider that old PF about on-par with sharpness and detail as far as the 4/4 135/3.5 QD goes. I don't believe it is exactly the same equation as later PF hence the odd/yellow WB. This seems to have been changed at the expense of some performance in the MC-I and MC-II PF's, but it could just be misleading opinion on the MC lenses... but anyway, that's why I had specifically purchased that AR-II PF originally rather than the MC - and I wasn't disappointed!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Is the TC same construction like J11 or the original Zeiss Something 135/4?


Quite different.


Jupiter 11


Rokkor TC


Triotar


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
blotafton wrote:



Teemō wrote:
That PF was one of the best Minolta lenses I tested on m43. Surprising, for being such an old release, but with yellow WB. Now I use the 4/4 MC-X which seems quite rare - mine has white specks of (I presume) fungus on some of the internal elements, and cleaning marks on the front, but I couldn't find one since then, especially one in better condition.


Interesting that you like the PF, I like it so far but many seems to think it's a real dog. Maybe I will think so too after using more 135mm lenses, don't use that FL very often.



I don't use 135mm that much at all - I have 100/2 instead (same optics), but I consider that old PF about on-par with sharpness and detail as far as the 4/4 135/3.5 QD goes. I don't believe it is exactly the same equation as later PF hence the odd/yellow WB. This seems to have been changed at the expense of some performance in the MC-I and MC-II PF's, but it could just be misleading opinion on the MC lenses... but anyway, that's why I had specifically purchased that AR-II PF originally rather than the MC - and I wasn't disappointed!


Minolta sure made many 135's!
Have you made any posts with the 100mm f/2? I had the chance to get one for $160 USD and regret not buying it.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:

Teemō wrote:
That PF was one of the best Minolta lenses I tested on m43. Surprising, for being such an old release, but with yellow WB. Now I use the 4/4 MC-X which seems quite rare - mine has white specks of (I presume) fungus on some of the internal elements, and cleaning marks on the front, but I couldn't find one since then, especially one in better condition.


Interesting that you like the PF, I like it so far but many seems to think it's a real dog. Maybe I will think so too after using more 135mm lenses, don't use that FL very often.


Pardon the puns Thank You Dog


Be aware that there obviously are different computations of the Minolta Rokkor-PF 2.8/135mm. The earlier Auto Rokkor-PF 2.8/135mm has a better performance and a yellowish color cast, while the later MC versions of the PF have no color cast, and a slightly inferior performance:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/327-nex-5n-und-135mm-teleobjektive

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Be aware that there obviously are different computations of the Minolta Rokkor-PF 2.8/135mm. The earlier Auto Rokkor-PF 2.8/135mm has a better performance and a yellowish color cast, while the later MC versions of the PF have no color cast, and a slightly inferior performance:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/327-nex-5n-und-135mm-teleobjektive

Stephan


Oh, I didn't know. Looks good in your comparison as well!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:

Minolta sure made many 135's!
Have you made any posts with the 100mm f/2? I had the chance to get one for $160 USD and regret not buying it.


I haven't. I've only taken a few images with it... on 35mm film, because I don't own a Sony A7. Mine also has a bit of an oily aperture so I'm not sure the aperture closes down to F8/F11 or smaller fast enough during exposure on a film camera. I can tell you a bit about it though, since it's a fairly uncommon lens otherwise. The first lens was of course an Auto Tele Rokkor-PF in 1961, and only the coatings were updated along with many cosmetic variations during production - but even there seems to be more than 1 variation in coatings obvious on the front as Minolta updated these constantly also. Mine is an MC-I Tele Rokkor-PF with the Auto Tele/AR-era coatings. That means, the front appears violet while all internal elements are yellow/orange. All my other MC lenses appear to have a green coating on the front and some internal elements are now purple/pink, with a few in yellow-orange.

I can quote from Oct/Nov 1967 Camera 35's review of the lens:

"This lens is good at any aperture. Wide open, 40 lines/mm is, if not critical, at least outstanding. What makes it so good is the fact that images produced are crisp and the lens seems unusually free of flare. The focusing mount is smooth, although a bit tighter than I'd like. This lens is a favorite among pros, by the way. Some never use anything else. Matched up with the SRT-101 and its excellent internal meter, this medium telephoto, with its half-stop increment feature, offres and awful lot of control over exposure. Use it indoors and out."
Resolution (lines/mm):
Center / edge:
f/2 &f/2.8: 40 / 34
f/4: 48 / 40
f/5.6 & f/8: 56 / 40
f/11: 64 / 48
f/16: 80 / 48
f/22: 56 / 40


They add, in the 135/2.8 write-up, rather unsurprisingly:

"Quote:This lens' performance is a close parallel with the 100mm f/2. Both seem to have the same high contrast and crispness. Again, a slightly tight mount, but it did free up with use and became extremely smooth. Optical performance is quite lovely for a lens this speed and length."


With a few remarks of my own, both from real photos on film and test shots on a 16MP m43 digital camera:
- Spherical Abberation seems to be a problem - I find F2 not as detailed as expected [also noticed on film as well with portraiture on a tripod - but Stephan has made excellent results wide open using a Sony A7 if I recall, on his website].
There is some Longitudinal CA but it's hardy distracting.
Wide open contrast is weak to moderate depending on the lighting - about average for a telephoto of this type I think. Stopped down to F5.6 and the contrast is very strong - and I guess that means it is fairly flare/reflection resistant against brightly lit subjects. I don't think a lens hood is necessary but I tend to use one anyway in case I drop it.
F2.8 offers an immediate improvement in sharpness and again at F4 by a similar intensity.
The focal point shifts at F2.8, moving behind the subject and therefore requiring minor correction by focusing closer again - this is really only relevant at close distances, however.
Bokeh balls are cat-eyed/squished at the edges which imparts a pleasing swirl to portraits at F2. By F2.8 you can expect these to largely go round as the lens uses a nice 7-bladed curved aperture, forming an inverted, tilted septigram and turning to vertical orientation at F22. Backgrounds blend deliciously.
Focus is smooth but heavy due to the comparatively thin helicoid, which apparently had a poor reputation for long-term durability.
The aperture blades on mine are also the polished/reflective type as per my AR-II Auto Tele Rokkor-PF 135mm F2.8 - not the anodised/matte-gunmetal aperture blades of my other MC lenses. I can't speak for other 100mm's out there but I have seen MC types with the correct MC element coatings. I'm guessing the aperture blades would be correct too on those lenses.
CA appears to be very well controlled or unnoticeable - which is consistent with it being optically the same as the contemporary AR-II 135mm F2.8.
It seems it doesn't have the colour-balance problems of the aforementioned precursor 135 either, and if anything images tend towards blue compared to other MC Rokkors which on-the-whole are colour-neutral or go a bit warmer, like my 4/4 MC-X 135 F2.8. The difference is even noticeable in the viewfinder of my SRTs.

Overall, it's a lens I wish I could use more - as the sharpness, detail, and contrast is like a razor when stopped down. As a portrait lens it seems pretty excellent also, considering the age and therefore limitations. The biggest limitation so far has nothing to do with the lens though, but my technique: bokeh of course never looks great on bright highlights, and the Long CA edging appears there, but I think only modern lenses have really tackled that issue completely. Funnily, I'd rate my MC-I 58mm F1.4 as the best lens I used on film, so that's what I'll compare the 100mm F2 against. Similar qualities to both when shot wide open, and both delivering the best quality when stopped down, even compared to my MC-X 24/2.8 and MC-I 35/1.8 or my 4/4 MC-X 135mm F2.8. Those aren't un-excellent lenses by any means but getting excellent results from them just doesn't seem so straightforward.

Really, I sound exaggerated - 'and it is what it is', but this lens hasn't given me problems so far. Many of the images I've taken thus far on film have been technically far from perfect too. I could assume those plainly unsharp images were the result of my equipment which is possible given their age and mechanical variation, - the fact I've unscrewed elements to clean apertures, but then so many images from the 58/1.4 and 100/2 seem to be just fine. Instead, I blame poorly dampened SRT mirrors and handshake.

I paid US$270 at the time for mine in worn exterior condition, excellent glass - with the original case in worn condition, third-part front lens cap and original rear cap - and I've not had remorse yet. But, as much as I write home about it, I don't think it's worth more than US$450 in excellent condition - consider that's what 85/1.7s and 58/1.2s are selling around - I believe it could be the better lens than the former and it does focus a bit (0.1m) closer. Of course, everything is worth more in a collector's condition, which would include the original and sparse lens hood, caps, good-condition leather case and box - but I've only seen one like that so far out of about 16 instances.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the detailed reply! I have two versions of the 58mm 1.4 so I can relate to that part.
I will probably get one sooner or later.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
Thanks for the detailed reply! I have two versions of the 58mm 1.4 so I can relate to that part.
I will probably get one sooner or later.

Cheers!


You're welcome! It's so much easier to get good results and have fun using these lenses on digital cameras anyway - but any flaws are also exaggerated which might lead to disappointment... That's when you shoot B&W and forget about any CA/Bokeh fringing/Colour balance problems. Razz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1