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

Minolta 100mm macro's
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.



This is a bit of a redundant statement. But hey, anything to "feed his growing family," right?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:

This is a bit of a redundant statement.

Sorry, I am not a native english speaker, what is redundant with my statement?
I know that a redundant power supply has two circuits.

BrianSVP wrote:

But hey, anything to "feed his growing family," right?

Why on earth should my statements feed in any way? I really think that I cannot follow
your thoughts due to language or humor differences.

But during thinking about it I looked after some test shots (not art) for these Macro lenses and uploaded
some two 60MP shots taken with my Sony A7RIVA, totally uncropped and only basic raw conversion
with Photolab 8.2.:
Minolta AF 2.8 100 Macro http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/DSC06355%20Minolta%20AF%202.8%20100%20Macro.jpg

some more http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/

Sigma FE 2.8 70 ART http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/DSC06245%20Sigma%20FE%202.8%2070%20ART.jpg

If you like to view them its best to download the JPGs and look at them with your prefered viewer (in my case Irfanview).

If you want to use a Browser like Firefox it most time shows, if you click on the + more than a 100%
enlargement of JPGs, dependimg on your computer hardware.

I for firefox found that you need to go to the config URL: about:config
search for pixel
and change the setting:layout.css.devPixelsPerPx
to a value of: 1
but carefully remember the value it has before the change, because in my case the value
was set per default to -1
and the change to 1 in my case signifficantly reduces the text and icon size
and so after viewing you can restore your default value.

BG


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2024 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:

This is a bit of a redundant statement.

Sorry, I am not a native english speaker, what is redundant with my statement?
I know that a redundant power supply has two circuits.

BrianSVP wrote:

But hey, anything to "feed his growing family," right?

Why on earth should my statements feed in any way? I really think that I cannot follow
your thoughts due to language or humor differences.

But during thinking about it I looked after some test shots (not art) for these Macro lenses and uploaded
some two 60MP shots taken with my Sony A7RIVA, totally uncropped and only basic raw conversion
with Photolab 8.2.:
Minolta AF 2.8 100 Macro http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/DSC06355%20Minolta%20AF%202.8%20100%20Macro.jpg

some more http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/

Sigma FE 2.8 70 ART http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/mflenses/divers/DSC06245%20Sigma%20FE%202.8%2070%20ART.jpg

If you like to view them its best to download the JPGs and look at them with your prefered viewer (in my case Irfanview).

If you want to use a Browser like Firefox it most time shows, if you click on the + more than a 100%
enlargement of JPGs, dependimg on your computer hardware.

I for firefox found that you need to go to the config URL: about:config
search for pixel
and change the setting:layout.css.devPixelsPerPx
to a value of: 1
but carefully remember the value it has before the change, because in my case the value
was set per default to -1
and the change to 1 in my case signifficantly reduces the text and icon size
and so after viewing you can restore your default value.

BG


If I may.

Re: redundant. I think Brian is agreeing with you -- many people have written that about KR in the past -- redundant is to say it again. Smile

Re: "feed his growing family" is what KR website does...


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:


If I may.

Re: redundant. I think Brian is agreeing with you -- many people have written that about KR in the past -- redundant is to say it again. Smile

Re: "feed his growing family" is what KR website does...
Like 1

KR has been begging for people to "feed his growing family" through affiliate links at the end of his ridiculous reviews for more than a quarter century now:



Of course, the images of his kids on his website haven't been updated since 2012, and the kids depicted in them are surely all just about old enough to be out of the house by now, so the "growing family" excuse rings a little hollow.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:

I now found time to look through my archieves and found the photodo MTF values again.
They were taken on a Zeiss MTF measuring device.

Minolta AF 50 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro 55 2.8

f2.8: 0.79/0.8
f4:0.85/0.83
f8:0.87/0.86


Minolta AF 100 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro AF 105 2.8

f2.8: 0.79/0.74
f4: 0.85/0.81
f8: 0.86/0.84

This really corresponds with my experience in practice.

BG

Interesting - thank you for sharing, especially since these are real MTF measurement results! And good to know that the results correspond to my own "real world" test results, too.

S


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Been through this thread 4 or 5 times now, and still am not clear on which Nikkor 55 f2.8 micro was MTF tested.
(This cross-eyed migraine headache really helps)
I'm actually old enough to remember the release of the M/F f2.8 micro, and the buzz on it was quite mixed at the time.

There actually was a 55 micro f2.8 in A/F for about 3 years running, before the switch to the 60 micro A/F.

So, which lens was tested? M/F 55 micro 2.8, or A/F 55 micro 2.8?
Specify, if you can please.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Been through this thread 4 or 5 times now, and still am not clear on which Nikkor 55 f2.8 micro was MTF tested.
(This cross-eyed migraine headache really helps)
I'm actually old enough to remember the release of the M/F f2.8 micro, and the buzz on it was quite mixed at the time.

There actually was a 55 micro f2.8 in A/F for about 3 years running, before the switch to the 60 micro A/F.

So, which lens was tested? M/F 55 micro 2.8, or A/F 55 micro 2.8?
Specify, if you can please.

-D.S.


They share the same optics.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Been through this thread 4 or 5 times now, and still am not clear on which Nikkor 55 f2.8 micro was MTF tested.
(This cross-eyed migraine headache really helps)
I'm actually old enough to remember the release of the M/F f2.8 micro, and the buzz on it was quite mixed at the time.

There actually was a 55 micro f2.8 in A/F for about 3 years running, before the switch to the 60 micro A/F.

So, which lens was tested? M/F 55 micro 2.8, or A/F 55 micro 2.8?
Specify, if you can please.

-D.S.


They share the same optics.


Sharing the same optics is still a bit of a stretch for being the same lens.
This argument carries less and less weight with me, as I learn more about lenses and real world performance.
Still curious as to the actual lens that was tested.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
- deleted -

Last edited by caspert79 on Wed Dec 18, 2024 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

So, which lens was tested? M/F 55 micro 2.8, or A/F 55 micro 2.8?
Specify, if you can please.

As I have declared above for the 55mm there was no A/F specified but also no M/F.
I think it may be the M/F.

BG


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here’s the old photodo database:

https://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/photodo_tests.html

Mtf scores for both the Minolta AF 100/2.8 and 55/2.8 is 4.5.
MF Nikkor 50/2.8 is 4.4, and Nikkor AF 60/2.8 is 4.2. I don’t see the Micro Nikkor AF 55/2.8 though. I have no reason to believe that it’s gonna be much better than the MF version.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Here’s the old photodo database:

https://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/photodo_tests.html

Mtf scores for both the Minolta AF 100/2.8 and 55/2.8 is 4.5.
MF Nikkor 50/2.8 is 4.4, and Nikkor AF 60/2.8 is 4.2. I don’t see the Micro Nikkor AF 55/2.8 though. I have no reason to believe that it’s gonna be much better than the MF version.


The values you show here is the photodo Grade value in the range from 0 to 5. The values I mentioned are the MTF for the given f-stops.

But both come to the same result: These Minolta Macros are a little bit better than the Nikons at that times.

That said, also the Nikon Micros are very good lenses too.

BG


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Here’s the old photodo database:

https://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/photodo_tests.html

Mtf scores for both the Minolta AF 100/2.8 and 55/2.8 is 4.5.
MF Nikkor 50/2.8 is 4.4, and Nikkor AF 60/2.8 is 4.2. I don’t see the Micro Nikkor AF 55/2.8 though. I have no reason to believe that it’s gonna be much better than the MF version.


The values you show here is the photodo Grade value in the range from 0 to 5. The values I mentioned are the MTF for the given f-stops.

But both come to the same result: These Minolta Macros are a little bit better than the Nikons at that times.

That said, also the Nikon Micros are very good lenses too.

BG



Yeah, the differences are minimal IRL, when scores are so close. But it’s annoying that internet ‘authorities’ make wild claims that are based on nothing. Ken Wheeler aka The Angry Photographer (although funny) is another one. Fact is, he can’t even make a decent photo.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Here’s the old photodo database:

https://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/photodo_tests.html

Mtf scores for both the Minolta AF 100/2.8 and 55/2.8 is 4.5.
MF Nikkor 50/2.8 is 4.4, and Nikkor AF 60/2.8 is 4.2. I don’t see the Micro Nikkor AF 55/2.8 though. I have no reason to believe that it’s gonna be much better than the MF version.


It depends on a couple of things.
There have been some instances with nikkors said to be the same optical computation performing differently.
They were a bit on the sneaky side with coatings changes for one, and sometimes differences in minimum focus distances.
I suspect there may have been some improvements made over time as well, with the way the optical assemblies were made and mounted.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2024 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Here’s the old photodo database:

https://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/photodo_tests.html

Mtf scores for both the Minolta AF 100/2.8 and 55/2.8 is 4.5.
MF Nikkor 50/2.8 is 4.4, and Nikkor AF 60/2.8 is 4.2. I don’t see the Micro Nikkor AF 55/2.8 though. I have no reason to believe that it’s gonna be much better than the MF version.


It depends on a couple of things.
There have been some instances with nikkors said to be the same optical computation performing differently.
They were a bit on the sneaky side with coatings changes for one, and sometimes differences in minimum focus distances.
I suspect there may have been some improvements made over time as well, with the way the optical assemblies were made and mounted.

-D.S.


Yes, I’ve noticed that for example the ai 105/2.5 and ai-s 105/2.5 perform differently, but the improvement is not earth shattering. I expect the same with the ai-s vs AF micro Nikkor, especially because the ai-s is already one of the best lenses in the list.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="lightdreamer"]
caspert79 wrote:
These Minolta Macros are a little bit better than the Nikons at that times.



BG


Well - .kenrockwell. asserts, that Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro-NIKKOR "is often used as the benchmark against which other lenses are compared. It's that good."

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f28ais.htm

Which imbued me to obtain the sample.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="LittleAlex"]
lightdreamer wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
These Minolta Macros are a little bit better than the Nikons at that times.



BG


Well - .kenrockwell. asserts, that Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro-NIKKOR "is often used as the benchmark against which other lenses are compared. It's that good."

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f28ais.htm

Which imbued me to obtain the sample.


That’s not my quote LittleAlex.

I don’t think you can go wrong with either the Nikkor or the Minolta, and I would be surprised if you could spot the difference in real world use. They are both bloody sharp lenses.

But so are a few other macro’s, including the Vivitar 55/2.8 and Yashica ML 55/2.8. That’s why I take anything that Rockwell says with a grain of salt.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

That’s not my quote LittleAlex.



Oh! So sorry!

caspert79 wrote:



I take anything that Rockwell says with a grain of salt.


I started to do it also. However his test are quite useful.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Been through this thread 4 or 5 times now, and still am not clear on which Nikkor 55 f2.8 micro was MTF tested.
(This cross-eyed migraine headache really helps)
I'm actually old enough to remember the release of the M/F f2.8 micro, and the buzz on it was quite mixed at the time.
There actually was a 55 micro f2.8 in A/F for about 3 years running, before the switch to the 60 micro A/F.
So, which lens was tested? M/F 55 micro 2.8, or A/F 55 micro 2.8?


caspert79 wrote:

They share the same optics.


Doc Sharptail wrote:
Sharing the same optics is still a bit of a stretch for being the same lens.
This argument carries less and less weight with me, as I learn more about lenses and real world performance.
Still curious as to the actual lens that was tested.


OK, DocS was right to push a little bit.
While the Micro Nikkor AiS 2.8/55mm and the AF Micro Nikkor 2.8/55mm in fact share the same lens elements,
the floating trajectory of the two moving lens elements had to be changed:
a) to get a 1:1 reproduction rate (instead of 1:2 with the MF Nikkor) and
b) to get a reduction in focal length while focusing towards 1:1 (to facilitate AF while the camera/lens was on a tripod)

Overall this led to a reduced perfomance of the AF Nikkor at closer ranges, compared to the MF version.
Source: Nikon lens designer Kouichi Ohshita at the official Nikon website [1001 Nikkor tales]

Doc Sharptail wrote:

It depends on a couple of things.
There have been some instances with nikkors said to be the same optical computation performing differently.

I would, rather say:
There have been some instances where lenses had the same lens section published, but were performing differently nevertheless.
That's a difference! Of course the computations were changed (often implementing new glasses), but the general lens section remained nearly the same. Examples?

* Minolta Auto Rokkor and MC-I 1.4/58mm vs Minolta MC-II 1.4/58mm
* Minolta MD-II 3.5/35-70mm vs Minolta MD-III 35-70mm
* Minolta AF 2.8/20mm, 1.4/35mm, 1.4/50mm and 2.8/50mm Macro vs the corresponding Sony AL lenses (still manufactured by Minoltra BTW)
* several well known Nikkors, as explained by Marco Cavina
* Konica AR 2.8/35mm (metal grip) vs Konica AR 2.8/35mm (rubber focusing grip)
* ...

S


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2024 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo again,

today very surprisingly (we have winter here) the sun comes out and so I got the opportunity to take my trusty old Minolta AF 2.8 50 Macro to my test spot "wildbachtal" and shot an apperture row. I converted the raws with DxO Photolab8.2.1 with lens corrections on (vignetting correction reduced to 90 out of 100) and USM sharpening modul completely disabled.

http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/historic_Minolta_AF_lenses_LA-EA5/Minolta_AF_2.8_50mm_Macro/

In addition I provide a tree stump photo taken at f7.1 for a shorter subject distance.

All files in full 60 MP (Sony A7RIVA) resolution taken with tracking AF which worked like a charm. All the Exif info I left included. IMHO the shots clear show what the old Minolta lens can deliver and also how wrong the K.R. statement is.
Even wide open and at infinity distance (which a Macro lens not really is calculated for) it shows a really very good result. The f8 shot is already very slightly worse than f7.1 because of the physically unavoidable diffraction effect.

Nearly the same goes for the Minolta AF 2.8 100mm Macro. These shots were taken in the afternoon and the sun has disappeared. Wide open the border and corner sharpness is even very slightly better than the 50mm Macro.

http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/historic_Minolta_AF_lenses_LA-EA5/Minolta_AF_2.8_100mm_Macro/

I would like to hear some comments.

BG


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo folks again,

last weekend the weather was fine, and so I added pictures taken again at my test spot wildbachtal with my 60MP Sony A7RIVA from the following lenses:

Sony 4 24-105mm G OSS
Tamron 2.8 28-75mm VXD G2

http://wuw2.ddns.net/public/FE-Mount_lenses/Landscape_test_DXO_converted

The shots are taken at 35mm focal length at the important to me f-stops.
OSS and IBIS were switched off to reduce softness due to sensor and lens element movement
(I found this to be necessary on 60MP resolution sensors with slow readout).

I was mostly interrested wether its worth using my old MF vintage lenses any longer compared to this new modern zoom lenses.

RAW conversion again with DXO Photolab 8.

I pass the test spot nearly every day on the walk with our two dogs.

Conclusion: Sorry to say that, but I really see nearly no reason any longer to use my vintage primes.

This was the fact many years ago for the telezoom range 70-200mm,

I use the Tamron 2.8 70-180mm VXD G2 nowadays,

and for many more years the

Canon EF 4 70-200mm L USM mostly with the Sigma MC11 adapter on Sony A7Rxy bodies)

and this now extends to the normal zoom range 24,28 - 70,75,105.

Times are a changing.

Best regards

lightdreamer

Last edited by lightdreamer on Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:50 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This isn't really the place to dump on m/f lenses.
If you are really happy with your A/F images, there are a lot of discussion boards that actually cater to that sort of thing.

It comes down to what one wants out of their final images- a matter of personal taste.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
This isn't really the place to dump on m/f lenses.
If you are really happy with your A/F images, there are a lot of discussion boards that actually cater to that sort of thing.

It comes down to what one wants out of their final images- a matter of personal taste.

-D.S.


Well , I think that he is right for he's own personal view, if I would need good 200% crops on the corner and would have the money, definitely it might be a smart option. In my case , I'm mostly shooting portraits ,many times have to use soft filters (or soften the image on post), I'm only viewing the image in a Full hd screen and only sometimes I print some of them (the larger would be an A4 size). So for me is smart enough to be happy with the A7II and enjoy using cheap manual lenses (some of them aren't cheap nowadays lol). Even for landscapes , 24MP is enough for me right now, maybe one day would get the A7R2 , but right now I'm fine with smaller size files. What's weird though is that once the technology has reached such a high level of perfection, people are starting to get bored with it and start buying/applying vintage look filters to their images lol.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
This isn't really the place to dump on m/f lenses.
If you are really happy with your A/F images, there are a lot of discussion boards that actually cater to that sort of thing.

It comes down to what one wants out of their final images- a matter of personal taste.

-D.S.


Well , I think that he is right for he's own personal view, if I would need good 200% crops on the corner and would have the money, definitely it might be a smart option. In my case , I'm mostly shooting portraits ,many times have to use soft filters (or soften the image on post), I'm only viewing the image in a Full hd screen and only sometimes I print some of them (the larger would be an A4 size). So for me is smart enough to be happy with the A7II and enjoy using cheap manual lenses (some of them aren't cheap nowadays lol). Even for landscapes , 24MP is enough for me right now, maybe one day would get the A7R2 , but right now I'm fine with smaller size files. What's weird though is that once the technology has reached such a high level of perfection, people are starting to get bored with it and start buying/applying vintage look filters to their images lol.


My limited experiences with A/F sort of confirms the commentary above.
As a matter of personal taste, I found the A/F images to be a bit on the cold and clinical side.
I'm on 36 m/p, and those differences are glaring.
My take on the A/F experience is that I don't care much for it.
For those who do like it, and make worthwhile images, more power to them.
I'm happy pottering around (still) with what once were dream lenses for me. At least I can afford them now.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
This isn't really the place to dump on m/f lenses.
If you are really happy with your A/F images, there are a lot of discussion boards that actually cater to that sort of thing.

It comes down to what one wants out of their final images- a matter of personal taste.

-D.S.


Well , I think that he is right for he's own personal view, if I would need good 200% crops on the corner and would have the money, definitely it might be a smart option. In my case , I'm mostly shooting portraits ,many times have to use soft filters (or soften the image on post), I'm only viewing the image in a Full hd screen and only sometimes I print some of them (the larger would be an A4 size). So for me is smart enough to be happy with the A7II and enjoy using cheap manual lenses (some of them aren't cheap nowadays lol). Even for landscapes , 24MP is enough for me right now, maybe one day would get the A7R2 , but right now I'm fine with smaller size files. What's weird though is that once the technology has reached such a high level of perfection, people are starting to get bored with it and start buying/applying vintage look filters to their images lol.


My limited experiences with A/F sort of confirms the commentary above.
As a matter of personal taste, I found the A/F images to be a bit on the cold and clinical side.
I'm on 36 m/p, and those differences are glaring.
My take on the A/F experience is that I don't care much for it.
For those who do like it, and make worthwhile images, more power to them.
I'm happy pottering around (still) with what once were dream lenses for me. At least I can afford them now.

-D.S.


It all depends on one's objectives.

Some people enjoy driving classic cars, even though a modern car is more fuel efficient, more comfortable, and "better" in almost every way.

Me, I don't get on well with the AF experience (nothing to do with image quality), and simply prefer the focus & f/stop handling experience of legacy MF lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3