| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: rokkor. md 135 or mc 100 |
 |
|
estudleon wrote:
Which is better in IQ, the 4/4 MD Rokkor 135/2,8 or the MC Rokkor X 100/2,5.
I saw http://www.paulfvs.dds.nl/lenstest.html
Any experience or though?
Thanks.
Rino[/i]
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
My thought: all teles from 1st tier manufacturers in 85-135 range are from very good to excellent. In practice IQ difference won't matter even if you can find them, so get the focal length that you want/need.
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks a lot but not for me. My son in law. I should use both. But it seems interesting to me know which of the two is the best.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 2463
Location: NC, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
The Minolta 135mm might be slightly better. I remember the Minolta 100mm f2 thread, there was some discussion about the earlier 135mm. Not exactly what your asking, but still revelant.
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rokkor-100-2-0-t25591,start,45.html
_________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Hi Rino ! The following may not actually be any use to you, but ... 
At the time when when the MC Rokkors were being made, the consensus in the photo retail trade was that MOST makers' 100 or 105 lenses were less sharp than their 135s. That was quite a sweeping generalisation but I do believe there was a large amount of truth in it. Back in the 60s, we were all obsessed with sharpness and considerations of 'bokeh' and focus-shift on stopping down got hardly any acknowledgement.
In my own experience, the 105 Super Takumar was less 'punchy' than the 135/3.5, the Canon 100 was certainly no better than the 135/3.5 and the 90 Tele Elmarit didn't have the bite that the 135 Tele Elmar did. But back then, Minolta wasn't on my shopping list. The big exception was the 105/2.5 Nikkor which certainly did have more about it than the 135/3.5, but whether than was because the 135 Nikkor was a weak performer I'm afraid I can't say!
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks. Yes, interesting posts. Thank you.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
Hi Rino ! The following may not actually be any use to you, but ...
At the time when when the MC Rokkors were being made, the consensus in the photo retail trade was that MOST makers' 100 or 105 lenses were less sharp than their 135s. That was quite a sweeping generalisation but I do believe there was a large amount of truth in it. Back in the 60s, we were all obsessed with sharpness and considerations of 'bokeh' and focus-shift on stopping down got hardly any acknowledgement.
In my own experience, the 105 Super Takumar was less 'punchy' than the 135/3.5, the Canon 100 was certainly no better than the 135/3.5 and the 90 Tele Elmarit didn't have the bite that the 135 Tele Elmar did. But back then, Minolta wasn't on my shopping list. The big exception was the 105/2.5 Nikkor which certainly did have more about it than the 135/3.5, but whether than was because the 135 Nikkor was a weak performer I'm afraid I can't say! |
Hi Stephen!
Yes, the 100/105 mm seem to be designed for portraits, so less sharper than the 135, for much general use. But I found the mi nolta 100 so sharp that I want to know which is the sharpest oc both.
It seems to be the 4/4 135/2,8.
Thanks Stephen.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
