View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:20 pm Post subject: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
tf wrote:
I wanted to share the link to review of this lens and was surprised to realize that there is no topic on the forum.
Close the gap.
Four lenses with close the same optical design were produced by Minolta, three of them are AUTO TELE ROKKOR-QE and last fourth is MC TELE ROKKOR-QE
Specifications for later MC via minolta.eazypix.de:
f 100
A max 3.5
A min 22
Elements 5
Groups 4
Filter thread 52
Lens Shade D52NE
close 1.2/4
Dimension 63×54
Weight 240
Year 1966
Style MC I
My copy shows unbelievable IQ and this lens definitely is one of the most unexpected surprises.
tests can be found here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
tf wrote: |
I wanted to share the link to review of this lens and was surprised to realize that there is no topic on the forum. |
This is because it's toooo SLOOOOOOOOOW!
Which is only partially a joke, since 100/2.8 is the first lens from my go-to kit to take a nap in the evening.
100/3.5 does indeed look like a fine lens. Thanks for the review.
==============================
That stopped down hexagon brought tears to my eyes.
Minolta guys couldn't do an aperture their glass deserved, even if their life depended on it.
They started with 8. Great.
Got down to 6 very rounded, 2 stops of unobtrusive rounded hexagons. Ok.
6 rounded with one stop of pleasant hexagons. Please stop.
Then came late MD line and took away our last rounded hexagon.
And then they had to merge with Konica.
Don't tell me it's a coincidence _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Yes a very thorough review.
Thank you
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:04 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
tf wrote: |
I wanted to share the link to review of this lens and was surprised to realize that there is no topic on the forum.
Close the gap.
|
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-auto-tele-rokkor-f3-5-100mm-on-lumix-g3-t74642.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-auto-tele-rokkor-qe-3-5-100-on-x-e1-t71062.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rokkor-qe-100mm-f3-5-t42346.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-mc-tele-rokkor-qe-3-5-100-t69262.html _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
Last edited by Lightshow on Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:07 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Hahaha - I know the fella who took those pictures
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:10 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
Hahaha - I know the fella who took those pictures
Tom |
I bet you two drink together every now and then... _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:29 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
Hahaha - I know the fella who took those pictures
Tom |
I bet you two drink together every now and then... |
Hahaha - indeed.
And he did want his lens back
Some time later I found an MC Tele Rokkor - PF 2.5/100 but I'm not sure that it is as sharp.
I'll have to post some images from it
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
tf wrote: |
My copy shows unbelievable IQ and this lens definitely is one of the most unexpected surprises.
|
I can absolutely confirm that. Only the (much later) Minolta AF 2/100mm is even better. _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
I'd like to find an MCII 100/3.5 Macro for my MCII collection. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tf
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
Only last one about MC, but anyway sorry that I missed it
Lightshow wrote: |
I'd like to find an MCII 100/3.5 Macro for my MCII collection. |
I'll add a review of that to lensqaworks soon )) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MrKodak
Joined: 07 Apr 2019 Posts: 22 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:52 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
MrKodak wrote:
tf wrote: |
I wanted to share the link to review of this lens and was surprised to realize that there is no topic on the forum.
Close the gap.
Four lenses with close the same optical design were produced by Minolta, three of them are AUTO TELE ROKKOR-QE and last fourth is MC TELE ROKKOR-QE
Specifications for later MC via minolta.eazypix.de:
f 100
A max 3.5
A min 22
Elements 5
Groups 4
Filter thread 52
Lens Shade D52NE
close 1.2/4
Dimension 63×54
Weight 240
Year 1966
Style MC I
My copy shows unbelievable IQ and this lens definitely is one of the most unexpected surprises.
tests can be found here |
That lens is one of the rare gems, one of those sleepers from the past that blows your socks off! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Only the (much later) Minolta AF 2/100mm is even better. |
Minolta AF 2/100mm is in the class of it's own, but wouldn't you say the 100/2.5 lineup is also a better lenses? _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1221
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I've the MD 100 mm 2.5 and it's a small and nice lens, good sharpness and brokeh, typically Minolta colors |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Only the (much later) Minolta AF 2/100mm is even better. |
Minolta AF 2/100mm is in the class of it's own, but wouldn't you say the 100/2.5 lineup is also a better lenses? |
I have to re-check, but a quick-and-dirty test when i got my MC 3.5/100mm resulted in less CAs than with the later [5/5] MC-X/MD-II 2.5/100mm versions. The earlier [6/5] version of the MC 2.5/100mm has less sharp corners than both the later 2.5/100mm [5/5] and the MC 3.5/100mm. _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm 1:3.5 |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
aidaho wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Only the (much later) Minolta AF 2/100mm is even better. |
Minolta AF 2/100mm is in the class of it's own, but wouldn't you say the 100/2.5 lineup is also a better lenses? |
I have to re-check, but a quick-and-dirty test when i got my MC 3.5/100mm resulted in less CAs than with the later [5/5] MC-X/MD-II 2.5/100mm versions. The earlier [6/5] version of the MC 2.5/100mm has less sharp corners than both the later 2.5/100mm [5/5] and the MC 3.5/100mm. |
Interesting to hear.
Are we talking about F3.5 vs stopped down to F4 comparison? _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 289 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
I found almost no pictures from this lens. Anyone who has it, share it. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote: |
I found almost no pictures from this lens. Anyone who has it, share it. |
Tomorrow I can make a quick test comparing the following:
* Auto Tele Rokkor 3.5/100mm
* MC-I 2/100mm
* MC-I 2.5/100mm
* MD-III 2.5/100
Today weather is crazy, pouring like hell - typical Lucerne summer weather*
S
* Humid warm air from the west hitting the first line of the alps ... _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 866
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I owned the 100 3,5 and liked it very much. However corners were not as sharp as MDIII 100 2,5 which I kept. So a very good portrait lens that can be very useful stopped down for landscape. _________________ 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 |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
sergun wrote: |
I found almost no pictures from this lens. Anyone who has it, share it. |
Tomorrow I can make a quick test comparing the following:
* Auto Tele Rokkor 3.5/100mm
* MC-I 2/100mm
* MC-I 2.5/100mm
* MD-III 2.5/100mm
|
Here they are - I've added also two Macro lenses, the old 4/100mm Bellows [3/3] (beware, there's also a more modern Bellows 4/100mm [5/4]) and the Minolta MD-III 4/100mm Macro:
I'm not sure whether the 4/100mm Bellows triplet really is that bad at infinity - maybe it's just corrected for short distances, maybe it is a damaged sample (from outside it looks perfect, and center resolutoin at infinity is perfect).
Obviously the Auto Rokkor (MC-I has the same optics) 3.5/100mm is the best of the three Minolta 100mm lenses from the 1960s. Equally obvious is that the later (1980s) MD-III lenses are much better than their 1960s counterparts. Especially the MD-III 4/100mm Macro is surprisingly sharp and free from CAs. It certainly is an excellent landscape lens.
The later Minolta AF lenses (AF 2/100mm and AF 2.8/100mm Macro, results not shown here) are about one stop faster than their MD-III counterparts, but equally sharp. Due to a floating lens (2/100mm) or a double floating lens design (2.8/100mm Macro) they keep their performance also at lower distances.
At infinity, both the MD-III 4/100mm Macro as well as the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro are visibly sharper than the first generation AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018 Posts: 841
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
I just purchased the Auto Rokkor version of this lens. Haven't arrived yet. Don't know if it is the same optical scheme as yours.
Sorry, was replying the first message, then saw Steve's. Thanks for showing the comparison! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 289 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
Great comparison. I would like some portraits or something in the near field. I bought on the Ebey ms version but because there is no air service with Japan only by sea and this is 2-3 months ) _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3925 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote: |
Great comparison. I would like some portraits or something in the near field. I bought on the Ebey ms version but because there is no air service with Japan only by sea and this is 2-3 months ) |
Some shots with Minolta MC-II 1.7/85mm, MD 2/85mm, Auto Rokkor 2/100mm, MC-II 2.5/100mm [6L] and MD-I 2.5/100mm [5L] are to be found here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/466-bokeh-mc-1-7-85mm-md-2-85mm-ar-mc-2-100mm-mc-2-5-100mm-md-2-5-100mm
This was an ad-hoc portrait session with a minolta collector friend who just had acquired a like-new Auto Rokkor 2/100mm, so we decided to compare it with a few other well known Rokkor lenses!
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
Optically, an above average lens. Good sharpness paired with a hint of residual spherical aberration.
Mechanically, not so great: no infinity hard stop (I've made one), long MFD.
Bokeh quality is pretty great up to 2-3 meters. Wont hold up for full body portrait. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 289 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
Optically, an above average lens. Good sharpness paired with a hint of residual spherical aberration.
Mechanically, not so great: no infinity hard stop (I've made one), long MFD.
Bokeh quality is pretty great up to 2-3 meters. Wont hold up for full body portrait. |
I saw it on dpreview ). Are there any more, say, waist portraits ? _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
No new portraits with this one.
That was an exposure that broke my shutter, and I haven't really used the lens since. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|