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

SMC Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8 vs Minolta MC-X 100mm f/2.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
A bit maybe. Hoods are only of a critical diameter on wide angles.


One can have a lively discussion as to the optimum hood shape/size/diameter for lenses Wink

It all depends on which becomes the limiting practical size factor in terms of carrying it around; length or diameter/diagonal.

For a given maximum practical length (depth) irrespective of diameter/diagonal a rectangular hood is better.
For a given maximum practical diameter/diagonal irrespective of length, a petal hood is better.
A round hood is a compromise either way; its virtual image is not a rectangular field stop as perceived from the entrance pupil, unlike dedicated petal or square hoods.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
stevemark wrote:


I have four 2.5/105mm Nikkors, two Sonnar type, and two Xenotar type. When shooting landscape, the Sonnar type Nikkor 2.5/105mm is clearly inferior to the Minolta MC/MD 2.5/100mm [5/5, i. e. newer computation]. At least my two samples of the Xenotar type Nikkor 2.5/105mm are inferior to the Minolta MC/MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], and about equal tro the earlier Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5].

Tested carefully and side-by side using the 24 MP Sony A7II.

S


This post is one of the best illustrations I have ever come across of how relying on pure resolution tests and MTF charts will leave you with a bunch of lenses producing sterile-looking images with no character.
...
The Nikkor (the Xenotar type) may be a "clearly inferior" lens to the Minolta for pixel-peeping purposes, but it nonetheless produces far better looking images. You will never change my mind on this.
Minolta is corner-to-corner sharp and has nice colors but portraits on it look flat, lifeless, and boring. In all honestly, the 100-105mm range is IMO one of the weakest points in the Minolta MC/MD range. In their well-documented quest to make lenses that follow their philosophy of having their entire lineup render the same way, this just happens to be a focal length where the "Minolta look" doesn't work as well.

Tomorrow, I'll take a few portraits, side-by-side, using the Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5], the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Sonnar], and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Xenotar]. You may tell me which is which. Maybe. Or maybe not ...

BrianSVP wrote:
100-105mm is a portrait length (really, who the heck uses this length for landscape?!?!), and the Nikkor produces far, FAR better portraits. There is a reason it was a go-to lens for photojournalists for the better part of half a century, with so many of the most recognized images of all time having been made using it.

I am using my professional telezooms quite often in the 85-135mm when shooting landscapes. For portraits I usually use 2.8/200mm or 2.8/300mm lenses, occasionally also 2.8/400mm.

S


PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please do! I'm up for the challenge. My only requests: same subject, natural light, same apertures.

Of course, as with any lens, you are going to have to shoot at least a roll's worth of identical shots from each lens in a variety of different scenarios with each lens in order to get even a basic sense of the differences in rendering performance. And 100 rolls each to understand them well.

Which is my entire point regarding silly declarations of how lenses are "clearly superior" or "inferior" based upon pixel-peeping and MTF chart Kabbalism, most often (and no, this isn't aimed at you) by people who wouldn't know how to take a decent picture to save their own life.


stevemark wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
stevemark wrote:


I have four 2.5/105mm Nikkors, two Sonnar type, and two Xenotar type. When shooting landscape, the Sonnar type Nikkor 2.5/105mm is clearly inferior to the Minolta MC/MD 2.5/100mm [5/5, i. e. newer computation]. At least my two samples of the Xenotar type Nikkor 2.5/105mm are inferior to the Minolta MC/MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], and about equal tro the earlier Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5].

Tested carefully and side-by side using the 24 MP Sony A7II.

S


This post is one of the best illustrations I have ever come across of how relying on pure resolution tests and MTF charts will leave you with a bunch of lenses producing sterile-looking images with no character.
...
The Nikkor (the Xenotar type) may be a "clearly inferior" lens to the Minolta for pixel-peeping purposes, but it nonetheless produces far better looking images. You will never change my mind on this.
Minolta is corner-to-corner sharp and has nice colors but portraits on it look flat, lifeless, and boring. In all honestly, the 100-105mm range is IMO one of the weakest points in the Minolta MC/MD range. In their well-documented quest to make lenses that follow their philosophy of having their entire lineup render the same way, this just happens to be a focal length where the "Minolta look" doesn't work as well.

Tomorrow, I'll take a few portraits, side-by-side, using the Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5], the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Sonnar], and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Xenotar]. You may tell me which is which. Maybe. Or maybe not ...

BrianSVP wrote:
100-105mm is a portrait length (really, who the heck uses this length for landscape?!?!), and the Nikkor produces far, FAR better portraits. There is a reason it was a go-to lens for photojournalists for the better part of half a century, with so many of the most recognized images of all time having been made using it.

I am using my professional telezooms quite often in the 85-135mm when shooting landscapes. For portraits I usually use 2.8/200mm or 2.8/300mm lenses, occasionally also 2.8/400mm.

S


PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Tomorrow, I'll take a few portraits, side-by-side, using the Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5], the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Sonnar], and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Xenotar]. You may tell me which is which. Maybe. Or maybe not ...


I'm curious. Based on a test before that I did between the Minolta, Topcor 100/2.8 and Kaleinar 5N, my guess is I'll not be able to tell the difference. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476,highlight,%2Bkaleinar.html


PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Tomorrow, I'll take a few portraits, side-by-side, using the Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5], the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Sonnar], and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Xenotar]. You may tell me which is which. Maybe. Or maybe not ...


I'm curious. Based on a test before that I did between the Minolta, Topcor 100/2.8 and Kaleinar 5N, my guess is I'll not be able to tell the difference. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476,highlight,%2Bkaleinar.html


I have done the comparison, albeit with a precious Buddha statue instead of a real person (the latter will follow). Will be interesting to see whether anyone can spot the Nikkors correctly ... Wink

S


PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very similar results. My highly subjective impression was that the Pentax showed better contrast the Minolta in the centre whereas the Minolta was marginally better in the corners.

I have been using the Pentax-M 100mm 2.8 from 1981. Used rather seldom these days but it does come in handy on occasion.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
chhayanat wrote:
Very similar results. My highly subjective impression was that the Pentax showed better contrast the Minolta in the centre whereas the Minolta was marginally better in the corners.

I have been using the Pentax-M 100mm 2.8 from 1981. Used rather seldom these days but it does come in handy on occasion.


It's great for hiking / traveling.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Tomorrow, I'll take a few portraits, side-by-side, using the Minolta MC 2.5/100mm [6/5], the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm [5/5], the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Sonnar], and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm [Xenotar]. You may tell me which is which. Maybe. Or maybe not ...


I'm curious. Based on a test before that I did between the Minolta, Topcor 100/2.8 and Kaleinar 5N, my guess is I'll not be able to tell the difference. http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476,highlight,%2Bkaleinar.html


I have done the comparison, albeit with a precious Buddha statue instead of a real person (the latter will follow). Will be interesting to see whether anyone can spot the Nikkors correctly ... Wink

S


Curious about the results Stephan!


PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

Curious about the results Stephan!


Pretty exhausted today - plus I may have the chance to shoot some portraits tomorrow ...

S


PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:

Curious about the results Stephan!


Pretty exhausted today - plus I may have the chance to shoot some portraits tomorrow ...

S


Ok we wait for 'the real deal' 😊


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the mean-time, here is another 100mm f 2.8.



Series E 100mm f 2.8 at f5.6 and ISO 64. Nikon L1-A filter. Other than resize, and a very small bit of contrast added, the image is un-messed with.





Successive crops show reasonably acceptable performance from what was once considered a budget series lens.
Subject distance is a bit long here at about 150 meters, with the lens just before the infinity mark.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, that's a nice lens as well, although I prefer the 105mm f/2.5, especially because of much better build quality. The Xenotar-type pre-Ai version regularly pops up for about the same price as the E series, or just a bit more. But as part of a traveling kit the E is great of course.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had two of the P 2.5 105's, and found them to be a bit on the purpose specific side- great portrait and close range performance out of both. Stretching them for the way I take pictures was a bit of a disappointment. That has everything to do with the way they are used, and is not a condemnation of the lenses. Both were out of close serial number ranges~ within a few hundred numbers of each other, and could well have been sample variation.

I still have a bit to find out about the 100mm range yet, and threads like this are quite informative.

-D.S.

Last edited by Doc Sharptail on Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I've had two of the 2.5 105's, and found them to be a bit on the purpose specific side- great portrait and close range performance out of both. Stretching them for the way I take pictures was a bit of a disappointment. That has everything to do with the way they are used, and is not a condemnation of the lenses. Both were out of close serial number ranges~ within a few hundred numbers of each other, and could well have been sample variation.

I still have a bit to find out about the 100mm range yet, and threads like this are quite informative.

-D.S.


I’ve had the newMD and currently have the latest 5/5 MC version. To me both great performers. There could be a tiny difference but I never noticed.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2023 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I've had two of the P 2.5 105's,
...
-D.S.


Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Xenotar" or the earlier Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Sonnar"? The Sonnar type is more prone to changing performance when changing from infinity to portrait distances. Check the corresponding Nikkor tale for more information!

caspert79 wrote:

I’ve had the newMD and currently have the latest 5/5 MC version. To me both great performers. There could be a tiny difference but I never noticed.


Testing for landscape purposes, the newer [5/5] Minolta MC/MD 2.5/100mm in fact is slightly better than the previous [6/5] MC 2.5/100mm. And the MD 4/100mm Macro is even better. Tested on 43 MP FF.

S


PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2023 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Xenotar" or the earlier Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Sonnar"? The Sonnar type is more prone to changing performance when changing from infinity to portrait distances. Check the corresponding Nikkor tale for more information!
S


They were the later Xenotar type. The Sonnar's still command more or less insane pricing around here.
I am leaning even more towards the sample variation thing here, after some long thought.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Xenotar" or the earlier Nikkor-P Auto 2.5/105mm "Sonnar"? The Sonnar type is more prone to changing performance when changing from infinity to portrait distances. Check the corresponding Nikkor tale for more information!
S


They were the later Xenotar type. The Sonnar's still command more or less insane pricing around here.
I am leaning even more towards the sample variation thing here, after some long thought.

-D.S.


My two samples of the Xenotar type Nikkor-P 2.5/105mm have a quite differing performance, too. The "bad" one however looks quite beaten up and must have seen a lot of things during its 50y life. Early SLR Nikkors here in Switzerland sometimes are in a pretty bad shape; most other vintage lenses sold here (including later K type, Ai and AiS Nikkors) usually look nice or even "like new".

S


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2023 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Took the Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8 to the beach todat. It has pretty awesome sharpness and bokeh wide open. Clickable for full size.
I didn't do any additional post processing, just directly converted from RAW to jpeg in Photoshop.

PentaxM10028392 by devoscasper, on Flickr

PentaxM10028394 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2