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 AF 85mm f/1.4 or Minolta AF 100mm f/2?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:21 am    Post subject: Minolta AF 85mm f/1.4 or Minolta AF 100mm f/2? Reply with quote
Anybody has or had both lenses? Any reasons to prefer one over the other?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Anybody has or had both lenses? Any reasons to prefer one over the other?


I've been using both lenses extensively, starting with one of the frist samples of the AF 1.4/85mm back in 1988. The 2/100mm was added about ten years later.

While the MinAF 1.4/85mm was made in three versions, there's only one of the MinAF 2/100mm. The 1.4/85mm has a complicated (for its time) floating focusing mechanism which tends to loosen a bit, giving raise to a slight play after 30 years of use. It's not at all as bad as with the slide bearings of the nFD lenses, and it can be fixed by simply tightening some srews in the floating focusing mechanism. The AF 2/100 has no such issues since its floating focusing consists of a single fixed rear lens and a moving "double gauss" front group - same construction as the nFD 1.2/50mm L and the nFD 1.2/85mm L.

While the three versions of the Af 1.4/85mm optically are the same (the fourth, AF 1.4/85mm Limited, is larger and has en even better correction), they differ mechanically. The first generation, shown below, has a very slim MF ring which however works very well if the original sunshade is used (same for the AF 2/100mm). The second version has a slightly broader focusing ring which is easier to use. The thrid generation has a very broad focusing ring. However, the ring of the third version has a lot of play in the MF mode (as have the corrsponding Nikkor AF lenses), and therefore I don't recommend this version for MF photography! The first and the second version do not have these problems.

The Minolta AF 1.4/85mm has visible purple fringing wide open - however, its purple fringing is nowhere nearly as bad as with the Canon nFD 1.2/85mm L (or its first generation EF eqivalent). Detail resolution (24 MP FF) is very good even at f1.4, but the contrast is low. The f 1.4 setting is perfectly useable for b/w images, and good for portraits since for both applications the purple fringing doesn't really disturb. Stopped down to f 2 the pruple firnging is nearly gone in the central part of te image, but still visible towards the borders. I would not recommend f2 for landscapes with the AF 1.4/85mm, but it would be no problem with the AF 2/100mm! At f2.8, however, the AF 1.4/85mm is well useable for landscapes, and it has a very smooth bokeh for portraits. At f4 it's perfect from corner to corner.

The AF 2/100mm is nearly perfect from f2 on, apart from slight lateral CAs and a bit of vignetting (which actually can enhance the effect of a portrait). Stopping down doesn't improve it that much, since it's already very good at f2. I always had the impression that the 1.4/85mm at f5.6 would have a tad more resolution than the AF 2/100mm - but that was my impression on 24MP where both lenses clearly outresolve the sensor. I must admit that I never used both lenses side-by-side on 43 MP or 60 MP FF.

I did, however, compare my slightly worn-out AF 1.4/85mm bought in 1988 and a recently acquired like-new AF 1.4/85mm on 43 MP FF. To my complete surprise the was not the slighhtes difference - even when really pixel-peeping. That says a lot about Minoltas quality control, and its determination to engineer professional 1st gen AF lenses.

By the way - the former head of repairs at Minolta Switzerland was offering a service to upgrade the Minolta AF 1.4/85mm glide bearings with a full-metal construction with reduced tolerances (brass instead of teflon). Maybe he still offers that modification.

Both lenses balance extremely well on the large (D)SLRS, but not so much on the A7 series.



These two lenses, along with the MinAF 2.8/20mm and the MinAF 2.8/200mm APO G, are among my most used vintage lenses, even though I have access to plenty of nice glass from all major manufacturers.

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AF?!!! :shocked: This is a Manual Focus forum!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
AF?!!! :shocked: This is a Manual Focus forum!


As I don’t have an AF adapter I will use it as a MF lens 😁

And Steve, thank you for your very detailed comments! The compact size of the 100mm is also a strong point
I see from your picture!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
AF?!!! :shocked: This is a Manual Focus forum!


In fact the first generation Minolta AF lenses has a distinct "MF lens" feeling when used on mirorless cameras via a "dumb" adapter. Most have traditional helicoids for focussing (including the zoom lenses!), and due to the torque limitation of the early in-camera AF motors their focusing is exceptionally smooth (which compensates to some extent for the slim MF rings). No internal motors (neither for aperture nor for focusing), no focus-by-wire MF, just good old mechanics ...

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

And Steve, thank you for your very detailed comments! The compact size of the 100mm is also a strong point
I see from your picture!


The physical difference in handling is not that significant as one might expect. My 1.4/85mm is 585 g (with hood, without caps); the 2/100mm is 500 g. And since the 1.4/85 is nearly ten mm shorter, it feels slightly more balanced on the A900 & grip. On the A7 series, the 2/100 does look more approriate, though Wink

Usually I prefer the "20mm + 50mm + 100mm + 200mm" combination over the "20mm + 85mm + 200mm" if I use primes. More often, however, the AF 2.8/16-35mm plus AF 2.8/70-200mm f2.8 lenses are being used ...

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
AF?!!! :shocked: This is a Manual Focus forum!


In fact the first generation Minolta AF lenses has a distinct "MF lens" feeling when used on mirorless cameras via a "dumb" adapter. Most have traditional helicoids for focussing (including the zoom lenses!), and due to the torque limitation of the early in-camera AF motors their focusing is exceptionally smooth (which compensates to some extent for the slim MF rings). No internal motors (neither for aperture nor for focusing), no focus-by-wire MF, just good old mechanics ...

S


Yeah, I'm actually very impressed by the quality of my Minolta AF 100/2.8 macro; it's a build quality you don't often find in AF lenses. I find manual focusing also not very difficult, despite the thin ring. Because of the thin ring, I can actually put my finger on the ring and the lens barrel at the same time, which allows for more controlled focusing. IMO an overlooked macro lens, which can be obtained for little money.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the 100mm F2 and it is a wonderful lens, I love the results you get with it
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1