debuggerus wrote:
wow, great shot, sebboh! How did you get so low? I just love it.
Which version of the 135/2.8?
thanks! the beauty of liveview with a flip up screen - i could hold the camera a few inches above the water and still focus and frame just fine. it's the MC PF version with the rubber focus ring.
Anyone else get jammed hoods with these? I've had two and both the hoods have been jammed (the grub screw has wiggled out some how). I managed to force the first one, but gave up with the last one .
ricardovaste wrote:
Anyone else get jammed hoods with these? I've had two and both the hoods have been jammed (the grub screw has wiggled out some how). I managed to force the first one, but gave up with the last one .
the hood on my present one is just a little loose otherwise no problem. the older metal focus ring version i had, had a perfectly smooth and damped hood.
KatieInTexas wrote:
Oh, and I wanted to add that this lens seems to need more processing than my 50 1.2 or my 24 2.8. Needs a bit more "umphf" or something...
a couple more:
love the pig. that extra processing is probably due to whatever's going on with the rear element lowering the contrast. my 135/2.8 seems to require the same amount of processing as your other rokkors.
I have a few Minolta MF tele lenses, the MD 85/2.0, the MD 135/2.8 (4/4) and a fine MC 200/4.0 .
My problem is, while all of them are very sharp, the purple fringing is quite bad, even stopped down .
For my Sony Nex, I finally got a couple of old Minolta AF tele lenses, the 100-300mm APO and 100-400mm APO; and frankly, they wipe the floor with the MF lenses - and those tele zooms aren't even considered to be that great...
Below are a few comparison shots; not entirely fair testing, but gives you an idea ; I did lots of testing with all my lenses .
I like working with the MF lenses much better, but they just don't cut it - the CA is a major issue, and the old APOs are sharper, too, with better color and detail .
You are comparing apples and bananas in the above comparison. It is not old manual focus lenses vs. new autofocus lenses, rather it is non-apo lenses vs apo lenses. I have yet to see any fringing or lateral CA on my MC 400mm f/5.6 APO.
Apples and bananas? Man you just skipped oranges all together and went right for the bananas... Hehe...
But something's wrong in the above PF examples anyway. I dunno whether it's that his whites are too clipped as in completely blown or if it's the APS-C sensor size S0ny is using or maybe even the reseller source saw fit to remove or radically reduce the lens coating. A combination of those perhaps? I have a few tele-rokkors and I never see nearly that much PF. Some of the other samples in this thread - even this page - would indeed display purple if there was an actual PF problem with them. I think all lenses will show some PF if the whites are extremely blown... no? I've even seen APO lenses do the PF thing when I botched the exposure. But that's me and not really the lens. Right?
From what I've read on-line PF is somewhat tired to focal length too. A 600mm lens will be more susceptible than a 50mm for example. If that's true then it could also factor in that my longest Rokkor is 200mm for both prime and zoom rokkors. Yet looking at the all of the other samples in this thread I don't see it in any of them. A few hints here and there but nothing like what's showing in his samples. So unless everyone is painstakingly removing the PF by hand (I'm not for sure) I have to conclude this much PF is only due to Tomser's setup, his particular copies and etc.
Bifurcator wrote:
Apples and bananas? Man you just skipped oranges all together and went right for the bananas... Hehe...
But something's wrong in the above PF examples anyway. I dunno whether it's that his whites are too clipped as in completely blown or if it's the APS-C sensor size S0ny is using or maybe even the reseller source saw fit to remove or radically reduce the lens coating. A combination of those perhaps? I have a few tele-rokkors and I never see nearly that much PF. Some of the other samples in this thread - even this page - would indeed display purple if there was an actual PF problem with them. I think all lenses will show some PF if the whites are extremely blown... no? I've even seen APO lenses do the PF thing when I botched the exposure. But that's me and not really the lens. Right?
From what I've read on-line PF is somewhat tired to focal length too. A 600mm lens will be more susceptible than a 50mm for example. If that's true then it could also factor in that my longest Rokkor is 200mm for both prime and zoom rokkors. Yet looking at the all of the other samples in this thread I don't see it in any of them. A few hints here and there but nothing like what's showing in his samples. So unless everyone is painstakingly removing the PF by hand (I'm not for sure) I have to conclude this much PF is only due to Tomser's setup, his particular copies and etc.
i can't speak for that lens but that is much worse than what i'm used to seeing from my 135/2.8 on the NEX. is yours similar to the 200mm? i certainly see loCA but not PF like that.
Well, the sample above was maybe a little extreme, and not really done properly; if you are interested here is a link to images of some testing under less demanding circumstances, and with more consistent results --> Image .
Don't get me wrong, I do not want to bash Minolta MF lenses, actually I really want to use them.
I've got a whole bunch of them, as it was my first camera system, and I bought a few more recently.
Today came the MD 4/70-210mm (AF version aka beercan), and I love the feel of it - only I think my copy isn't too good, a bit softish at the long end .
Anyways, I took literally hundreds of test shots in the past few weeks with the Nex-5 , and keep running into CA issues .
The Apo lenses are not entirely free of CA either, but you really have to push them to get any - and they are an old design from the 80s.
To be fair, most of my MF lenses improve a lot by stopping down by just 1-2 stops, and the CA can in most cases be removed fairly easily in Photoshop .
From the tests posted above, beside the shots with the MC 200/4 having way more exposure vs the AF shots, I noticed that you used the 300-s. That's a 2x converter. The severe purple fringing is likely introduced/emphasized from the converter.
Try to use the lens directly thru a glassless adapter, stop down to the same f-stop as the AF lenses. The NEX will probably have problem metering the manual lenses accurately so you will need to compensate. Don't give up on them yet. You'll be surprise of the result.
5 - Doesn't PF at all. Not even a little.
4 - I haven't stress tested specifically for PF but it hasn't produced a shot with PF in it yet that I noticed.
3 - I only tested for sharpness on the res-chart. No PF there though.
2 - Probably same model as your lens. There's no PF except edging EXTREME blowouts.
1 - There's no PF except edging EXTREME blowouts.
1, 2, and 5 for sure would not produce the soft PF I see in your linked image.
5 is new to me acquired about a week or two ago, but after reading this thread yesterday I went out and shot about 300 shots with it. About 75 or 80 of them were in order to intentionally try to get it to PF on me. It refused to do so. I might put 3 and 4 to the PF test as well but I dunno when - those models aren't so interesting to me. Here's some of my PF test shots with the 100-200/5.6 (#5) I took yesterday:
All wide open tho wide open is f/5.6
My script went a little off course so some of the above are actually showing enlarged 160% crops in the right hand portion of the image.
Also all of the above were taken through the windshield of my Audi TT - some while moving.
Bif - it's worth noting that zooms tend to be much less susceptible to loCA and PF due to necessity of design. the weaknesses of zooms tend to be in other areas, most obviously resolution and distortion.
.
Hehe...
