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 MD 100mm/F4 macro (version MD III)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hood wrote:
I have an old Minolta 100mm f4 lens which is non macro.
The hood has a silver nose. It is a beautiful lens.

Minolta Rokkor-TC 100/4? Haven't seen any reliable info on this one either.


PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
Hood wrote:
I have an old Minolta 100mm f4 lens which is non macro.
The hood has a silver nose. It is a beautiful lens.

Minolta Rokkor-TC 100/4? Haven't seen any reliable info on this one either.

In addition there's also the Minolta Rokkor-TC 4/100mm for bellows. The latter is clearly optimized fo shorter ranges; it's performance at infinity is terrible. Lokking at the published lens sections, one can assume that the non-macro Rokkor-TC 4/100mm does not have the same optical construction as the 4/10mm bellows.

I recently received a Bellows Rokkor TC 4/135mm and i could compare it to my (non-Bellows) Rokkor-TC 4/135mm; this would show whether they are different or identical optical constrictions.

S


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers for your replies guys about my 100mm f4.
I just looked up the TC version and I don't think mine is that. Mine does not have the aperture towards the end of the lens (like a preset, as I see on pics of the TC version), it is in the standard position off the top of my head. Though the hood I have for it definitely looks like the TC version hood. I'm at work at the moment so can't actually check.
It was Mothers day on the weekend so I didn't get time to take a picture of the lens to show you guys. I will try to do that asap, time permitting.


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, I'm an idiot.
Just got home from work and checked that lens.
I remember I purchased it as a Minolta 100mm f4 a fair few years ago now. It arrived. I checked it was clean, put it in my lens cabinet... and there it sat for a good few years, till mid last year when I finally mounted it on my camera and took a few snapshots of the kids wide open. Really impressed me. Great rendering. Shot some with it again recently. Still really like it. Great portrait lens. Very 3d character to it's rendering of faces.
Anyway, checking just now, turns out it is infact a Minolta auto tele rokkor-qe 100mm f3.5. I never actually checked the front plate properly. I always just mentally labelled the lens as 100mm f4 as that is what I purchased in the listing originally. Thankyou so much for the replies. Sorry for wasting your time and also sorry for hijacking this thread.


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hood wrote:
Anyway, checking just now, turns out it is infact a Minolta auto tele rokkor-qe 100mm f3.5.

Don't sweat it, haha.
I've recently received this very lens and have a bunch of raw files patiently waiting to be developed and posted to the "Bokeh Only" thread.

Spoiler: it did good.


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tele Rokkor 100 QE is a good lens. Marginally less sharp in the corners than modern computations but probably to the benefit of bokeh. So a very good portrait choice.

[img][/url]Giverny by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Back to the topic: MD 100mm/F4 on Sony A850 at F4 fully open:



PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Back to the topic: MD 100mm/F4 on Sony A850 at F4 fully open:


The MD-III 4/100mm Macro is exceptionally sharp and free of CAs even in the infinity range, and wide open!
The MC/MD 3.5/100mm Macro is less so, having slightly "unsharp" corners at f3.5 and, to some extent, also at f5.6.
Finally, the Minolta Rokkor-TC 4/100mm for bellows has a really low performance at infinity.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sharp, it is.

[img][[/url]L'arrivée du printemps | Spring is coming by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry people. This is sharpness terror. You might need a new pair of eyes.

[img]La fin des châtaignes | The end of chestnuts by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Definitely a lens I regret selling. Hope to add one back to my collection in the near future.

Found these old images on my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/gp/55691955@N05/k422Fc


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also a superb lens for landscape work at infinity.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today I've been shooting a variety of golden sacral objects, mainly calices and monstrances from the 18th and 19th century.
Usually I'm using either the MinAF/SAL 2.8/50mm Macro and the MinAF/SAL 2.8/100mm Macro or the Mamiya Sekro C 80mm
and Sekor A 120mm Macro lenses (and sometimes the AF Micro Nikkors 2.8/60 and 2.8/105), this time I went for the Minolta MD-III
3.5/50mm Macro and MD-III 4/100mm Macro. These lenses were combined with the Sony A7RII 43 MP FF camera.

The following summarizes my "macro" experiences with the 4/100mm (which I did use most of the time).

Wide open, and around 1:2 ... 1:3, there some slight purple fringing is visible. But already at f5.6 is is gone completely. In the image
center, the image quality is best af f5.6 or f8. But at least at f8 (didn't use f5.6 due to issues with the depth-of-field) the image seems
to be perfect even in the corners: No CAs, no fringing even with critical motives such as these. Quite often I've been using f11 as well
(which clearly reduces constrast), and sometimes even f16 (much reduced contrast on 43 MP FF) - simply because is did need the
increased depth-of-field, but not the extreme resolution.

Today I have been using the MD-III 4/100mm Macro in the 1:2 to 1:25 range. When using optimal apertures (f5.6 or fCool, the results
are excellent. On the A7RII I cannot see any differences when comparing it e. g. to the Mamiya Sekor C 4/80mm Macro or the
Mamiya Sekor A 4/120mm Macro lenses (the latter is probably better than the MinAF 2.8/100mm or the AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm).

While the Minolta MD-III 4/100mm only has very minor issues wide open, the MD-III 3.5/50mm Macro isn't that good around 1:20,
and wide open. To get perfect corner results on the 43 MP FF I would recommend to stop down to f8 or f9.5. I suspect that this lens
was optimized for smaller ratios, maybe 1:5 ...(?), but I have no proof for that. I has a classical Planar structure [6/4], but no floating
elements.

S


PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Today I've been shooting a variety of golden sacral objects, mainly calices and monstrances from the 18th and 19th century.
Usually I'm using either the MinAF/SAL 2.8/50mm Macro and the MinAF/SAL 2.8/100mm Macro or the Mamiya Sekro C 80mm
and Sekor A 120mm Macro lenses (and sometimes the AF Micro Nikkors 2.8/60 and 2.8/105), this time I went for the Minolta MD-III
3.5/50mm Macro and MD-III 4/100mm Macro. These lenses were combined with the Sony A7RII 43 MP FF camera.

The following summarizes my "macro" experiences with the 4/100mm (which I did use most of the time).

Wide open, and around 1:2 ... 1:3, there some slight purple fringing is visible. But already at f5.6 is is gone completely. In the image
center, the image quality is best af f5.6 or f8. But at least at f8 (didn't use f5.6 due to issues with the depth-of-field) the image seems
to be perfect even in the corners: No CAs, no fringing even with critical motives such as these. Quite often I've been using f11 as well
(which clearly reduces constrast), and sometimes even f16 (much reduced contrast on 43 MP FF) - simply because is did need the
increased depth-of-field, but not the extreme resolution.

Today I have been using the MD-III 4/100mm Macro in the 1:2 to 1:25 range. When using optimal apertures (f5.6 or fCool, the results
are excellent. On the A7RII I cannot see any differences when comparing it e. g. to the Mamiya Sekor C 4/80mm Macro or the
Mamiya Sekor A 4/120mm Macro lenses (the latter is probably better than the MinAF 2.8/100mm or the AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm).

While the Minolta MD-III 4/100mm only has very minor issues wide open, the MD-III 3.5/50mm Macro isn't that good around 1:20,
and wide open. To get perfect corner results on the 43 MP FF I would recommend to stop down to f8 or f9.5. I suspect that this lens
was optimized for smaller ratios, maybe 1:5 ...(?), but I have no proof for that. I has a classical Planar structure [6/4], but no floating
elements.

S


Thanks for details. Got this lens recently. Haven't got chance to try it out.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
... the MD-III 3.5/50mm Macro isn't that good around 1:20,
and wide open. To get perfect corner results on the 43 MP FF I would recommend to stop down to f8 or f9.5. I suspect that this lens
was optimized for smaller ratios, maybe 1:5 ...(?), but I have no proof for that. I has a classical Planar structure [6/4], but no floating
elements.

S


I've used the Minolta MD50/3.5 a lot for scanning negatives in combination with the auto extension bellows, so between 1:2 and 1:1 magnification.

While it's definitely sharp and evenly illuminated at high apertures (I normally use f8 or f11 for scanning) it is nothing to write home about between 3.5 and 5.6. Also I recall it having quite some vignetting wide open despite the slow speed.

I've since switched to a 90/2.5 Tamron for this application since I've found to prefer the longer working distance.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2