Peire wrote:
Rokkor 50/3.5 is soft in the corners up to f5.6,but has a very nice colour rendition.The worst 50/55/60mm macro w/o out of my 8 of this fl,but I like it for colours ,built quality and IQ at f5.6 and up.
this was my impression too, but mine is such a beautiful looking and handling lens (old m39 version).
Peire wrote:
Rokkor 100/3.5 MC macro is nice but big,heavy and much more prone to flare compared to the Rokkor 100/4.IQ wise they are comparable with a slight edge to 100/4.
i've not had any flare difficulties, but i've only really used it for macros.
mirkoc wrote:
Peire, would you post some more of 50/3.5 Rokkor to show the colour rendition?
I don't have anything more online now,but look up for the excellent Philip's examples. Unfortunately, I have more lenses than time to take photographs.Some of my recently acquired glass were not tried in the field so far but only briefly tested at home and "through the window".I delete all boring test shots soon after inspection.
Philip Reeve-beautiful 50/3.5 Rokkor pictures.Canon FD SSC 50/3.5 is the best of all 50-55/3.5-4 macro lenses that I have.Sharp and contrasty across the frame,even w/o.Colours - typical Canon.Not as much "personality" in the IQ as Rokkor 50/3.5,but a better lens overall.FDn version is smaller and equally good.
thanks @peire
some pictures from the Minolta 100/4. Be aware that it has a double-helicoid making it quite unpleasant to focus, IQ is fantastic at any distance.
here is a test on the nex 7 at infinity against the Kiron/Vivitar 100/2.8 which is much nicer to handle 100mmMacroComparison by Phillip Reeve, on Flickr
Peire wrote:
Philip Reeve-beautiful 50/3.5 Rokkor pictures.Canon FD SSC 50/3.5 is the best of all 50-55/3.5-4 macro lenses that I have.Sharp and contrasty across the frame,even w/o.Colours - typical Canon.Not as much "personality" in the IQ as Rokkor 50/3.5,but a better lens overall.FDn version is smaller and equally good.
I have the nFD 50/3.5 and it's a great lens but I agree that it doesn't really have much personality. I especially like the handling, depsite the fact that it has some plastic parts (aperture ring).
My Tokina 90/2.5 is in a different class though: it has a biting sharpness that accentuates details but it still has a nice gentle rendering without the "exaggerated" contrast of the Zeiss 100/2.8 Makro-Planar that I also have.
I've made some great shots with the nFD 50/3.5 on 1.6x crop, but I've hardly used it on FF.
AhamB wrote:
I have the nFD 50/3.5 and it's a great lens but I agree that it doesn't really have much personality. I especially like the handling, depsite the fact that it has some plastic parts (aperture ring).
My Tokina 90/2.5 is in a different class though: it has a biting sharpness that accentuates details but it still has a nice gentle rendering without the "exaggerated" contrast of the Zeiss 100/2.8 Makro-Planar that I also have.
I've made some great shots with the nFD 50/3.5 on 1.6x crop, but I've hardly used it on FF.
I might have a buyer for my Minolta 100/4, i asked for 130€. What do you think how much should i expect to pay for a bokina?
Haven't seen any love for the Mamiya 645 120mm lens. I've had two copies and both have been exceptional. I like it as a medium telephoto as well as a macro.
ok that's enough. what I love about alt lenses is that they require very little post processing to shine. I warm the WB, sharpen a bit and they are done.
Just for fun, here is a test between two of my fav macro lenses. No processing or sharpening at all, and by no means scientific, I just wanted a quick compare. Original size available. Both are at f4.
The Bokina is very very sharp, but suffers from very slight purple fringing. The Contax is warmer and more natural and pleasing imo.
'Haven't seen any love for the Mamiya 645 120mm lens.'
We are lucky to be visited by theSuede from time to time, who is expert enough for us all to listen to closely. He says the 120/4 M645 macro is one of very few medium format lenses to rank with the better native 35mm lenses. The knowledgeable people know this.
I tend to think of macro lenses as the heavy hitters of photography and can never understand their comparative lack of popularity, despite a little extra effort being required due to focus ring throws not being ideal near infinity. It's good CZ produced two such good Makros in ZE/F. My thanks to all contributors to this thread.
Unfortunately, I have more lenses than time to take photographs.Some of my recently acquired glass were not tried in the field so far but only briefly tested at home and "through the window".I delete all boring test shots soon after inspection.
