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

John Riley (with MTF chart) Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2024 8:54 pm    Post subject: John Riley (with MTF chart) Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8. Reply with quote
I’ve praised this lens before because of its tiny size, yet great optical quality and fine build quality. Thought I’d share a more in depth review with you: https://www.pentaxuser.com/review/smc-pentax-m-100mm-f-2-8-lens-review-2237


PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting read, if not a bit strange discussion of focal lengths.
For years, my first reaction would be to reach for an 85 if 135 was too tight- probably just a matter of personal perception.

There are a few optical equals to the lens discussed- if one can forgive 5mm, the 105 f2.5 A/I-s nikkor cuts a pretty sharp path, with a slightly larger physical presence. The 100mm series E comes close with compact size and great optics. It's draw back is the squeaking, groaning plastic construction.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Interesting read, if not a bit strange discussion of focal lengths.
For years, my first reaction would be to reach for an 85 if 135 was too tight- probably just a matter of personal perception.

There are a few optical equals to the lens discussed- if one can forgive 5mm, the 105 f2.5 A/I-s nikkor cuts a pretty sharp path, with a slightly larger physical presence. The 100mm series E comes close with compact size and great optics. It's draw back is the squeaking, groaning plastic construction.

-D.S.


The good thing about the Pentax is, that is has no real weak points. It's half the weight of the Nikkor Ai(s) and it is usually cheap.
Closest lens I can think of is the Zuiko 100/2.8, but it is usually much more expensive, and optically slightly weaker.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
where do you place this lens in the 100Club that you had before ?


i rememebr T 100/2.8 and selling it ..


PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
where do you place this lens in the 100Club that you had before ?


i rememebr T 100/2.8 and selling it ..


Pretty high, because of great value.

Optically comparable to Nikkor 105/2.5 ai-s and late Minolta MC(5/5) and MD 100/2.5.
Mechanically it's as good as you can expect from a lightweight lens; definitely better than the later Minolta MD's.
Practicality: 10 out of 10.

The Zuiko I shouldn't have sold; mechanically it's a jewel (and it looks like one).


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2024 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
robin0112358 wrote:
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


I have the QBM version; I could do a comparison one day.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
robin0112358 wrote:
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


I have the QBM version; I could do a comparison one day.


Would be also interesting to see the Topcor 100 against the Sonnar 85 QBM. Both will certainly be extremely sharp but more to see how they compare on character and micro contrast.

Just saying. Thank you.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2024 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pabeu wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
robin0112358 wrote:
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


I have the QBM version; I could do a comparison one day.


Would be also interesting to see the Topcor 100 against the Sonnar 85 QBM. Both will certainly be extremely sharp but more to see how they compare on character and micro contrast.

Just saying. Thank you.


If you’re interested, I did a test earlier between the Topcor, Minolta and Kaleinar 100mm lenses:
https://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476.html


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2024 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
pabeu wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
robin0112358 wrote:
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


I have the QBM version; I could do a comparison one day.


Would be also interesting to see the Topcor 100 against the Sonnar 85 QBM. Both will certainly be extremely sharp but more to see how they compare on character and micro contrast.

Just saying. Thank you.


If you’re interested, I did a test earlier between the Topcor, Minolta and Kaleinar 100mm lenses:
https://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476.html


Yes. Great post. Though my interest comes from having the Sonnar 85 QBM but I am in the hunt for a Topcor 100.

Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pabeu wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
pabeu wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
robin0112358 wrote:
Thanks for this useful review.

I would compare this to the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85/2.8 which has a similar size, weight, and close focus. Of course one needs a mirrorless camera in order to do a direct comparison.


I have the QBM version; I could do a comparison one day.


Would be also interesting to see the Topcor 100 against the Sonnar 85 QBM. Both will certainly be extremely sharp but more to see how they compare on character and micro contrast.

Just saying. Thank you.


If you’re interested, I did a test earlier between the Topcor, Minolta and Kaleinar 100mm lenses:
https://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-vs-minolta-vs-kaleinar-100mm-t84476.html


Yes. Great post. Though my interest comes from having the Sonnar 85 QBM but I am in the hunt for a Topcor 100.

Smile


Yeah, the Topcor is quite a jewel. Try to find a good example, although you have to pay a bit more probably . Mine looks like it just left the factory, and it makes you appreciate the quality of engineering. The mechanics on the thing are top notch as well.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2024 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this lens somehow similar to the Takumar 105mm/2.8? Because I have the Takumar and not really satisfied with it and looking for an upgrade.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2024 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I probably should update my earlier comparison of 100mm lenses to include a few "new" lenses I got in the mean time, including the S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105mm ...


* Canon nFD 2.8/100mm
* Elicar 2.8/100mm
* Konica AR 2.8/100mm
* Mamiya SX 2.8/105mm
* Minolta MC-I 2.5/100mm
* Minolta MC-II 2.5/100mm
* Minolta MC-X 2.5/100mm [6/5]
* Minolta MD-I 2.5/100mm
* Minolta MD-III 2.5/100mm
* Nikkor-P 2.5/105mm (Sonnar)
* Nikkor-P.C. 2.5/105mm (Xenotar)
* Pentax S-M-C Takumar 2.5/105mm
* Topcor RE 2.8/10cm
* Topcor RE 2.8/100mm

* Admiral (Komine) 2.8/90mm Macro
* Canon FD 4/100mm Macro
* Konica AR 4/105mm Macro
* Minolta MC-II 3.5/100mm Macro
* Minolta MC-X 3.5/100mm Macro
* Minolta MD-I 3.5/100mm Macro
* Minolta MD-III 4/100mm Macro
* Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro
* Miranda Auto 2.8/105mm
* Micro Nikkor Ai 4/105mm
* Micro Nikkor AiS 2.8/105mm
* Micro Nikkor AF 2.8/105mm (I)
* Novoflex Noflexar 3.5/100mm Macro Bellows
* Panagor (Kiron) 2.8/90mm Macro
* Pentax SMC M 4/100mm Macro
* Tamron 2,5/90mm Macro (52B)
* Vivitar (Kiron) 2.8/100mm Macro

Ouch, that has become quite a list ... and still some important lenses are missing: Leica R, Olympus OM, Pentax M ... you name it!

S


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2024 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kind of curious about the micro-nikkors in the 105mm variants and how they compare to one another.

After going through some of nikon's non-micro versions in the 100mm zone, I was a bit less than impressed.
The "E" 100mm 2.8 was very good optically for me, but left a lot to be desired with it's nylon/plastic based construction.
The P.C. 105 was alright- a stable work-horse, but nothing really stellar. It wanted f5.6 or better to bring out it's strong points.
I think that particular lens was a bit over-rated for optical performance.

The one that really impresses me (and I keep getting distracted from a complete work-out with it) is the A/I-s 105 f2.5 in the non-micro version. I still have trouble finding the difference between wide open and f5.6, and have to refer to the camera to see what I did with the aperture. That one is a definite keeper.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2024 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well my 4.5/105mm UV-Nikkor is about the sharpest lens I have ever come across - my everyday lens (for my kind of work that is...). http://uvir.eu
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1