Makten wrote:
I strongly disagree, except for the CA (even though I think you mean fringing). The main weakness of the Nikkor is still LoCA.
Also, I've had multiple copies of AI and AI-S and never saw any difference. Nothing indicates that there would have been optical improvements in AI-S. The pre-AI is totally different though.
I'd take the 100/2 Makro-Planar any day over the Nikkor, even if the Nikkor is a very nice lens.
I've A/B'd the two lenses and find the results indistinguishable in terms of colour & contrast (between the AI-S and the ZF), I could not tell which is which aside from CA (and I'm pretty sure it was CA, fringing is rarely green) and I've usually got a pretty good eye for finding small differences in rendering, the older Nikkor 105's don't stand up to the ZF as well due mostly to older coatings as well as some minor rendering differences from aperture design changes between the AI and AI-S versions. The optical design for the AI and AI-S is the same, the coatings & aperture differ.
The Nikkor 105/2.5 is IMHO the most Zeiss-like lens Nikon made since they ended production of their RF-mount Sonnar clones.
Note also I've not yet seen a copy of the 1.8 that's as good as the 2.5, There's a lot of 2.5's out there and I've been pretty lucky in that all 3 I've owned have been very good ones. It's quite possible that I just got really lucky in sample selection.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I think the Minolta 100/2 is a great under rated option. I owned a 100 ZF, CY 100, Mino 100/2 and Oly 100/2. They all had distinct positives, but I enjoy my Mino 100/2 and kept it.
Thanks for sharing and nice pics! I don't know anything about Minolta lenses so had to do some research and check browse Flickr.
Does someone have experience with those and able to give some comparison?
I would also be interested to know how they compare to the:
- CY 100mm f3.5
- Nikkor 100mm f2.5 ai-s
I have crops from an A7r2, but it’s a sharp lens wide open into the far corners. It’s has a slight SA wide open, and some fringing but cleans up by 2.8 and is superb by f4. Its small (for a 100/2) and quite cheap.
The major downsides 1) small focus ring—it’s meant as an AF lens 2) no dedicated aperture ring, it’s on the adapter so unmarked and 3) flare resistance is not as good as modern glass.
Late Minolta lenses can be fabulous, bokeh and color are so rich. Check out review of the Mino 200/2.8, 100/2 200/4 macro and such. I know Phillip enjoyed the 100 2.5 for a time.
So many fine 100s have come and largely disappeared from view. Always a pleasure to view their output.
'Does it do well for portraits too?' Yes, it's my favourite, the easiest focus MF portrait lens I've used, always wide open. Skin tones fall into place, here are some to show fade character and distances, over several years, light conditions.
philip_pj wrote:
So many fine 100s have come and largely disappeared from view. Always a pleasure to view their output.
'Does it do well for portraits too?' Yes, it's my favourite, the easiest focus MF portrait lens I've used, always wide open. Skin tones fall into place, here are some to show fade character and distances, over several years, light conditions.
Rendering on that 2nd photo in particular is wonderful Phillip
I definitely haven't A/B'd them or really even compared them; I've only tried out a 100MP a couple times. But I did have the 105/2.5 for years and mine was plenty sharp but very clearly not on par with the 100MP or my 100AME. You mention having had 3 of the Nikons; did you have more than one 100MP? I'm wondering if I had a weaker sample Nikon and/or you had a weaker sample Zeiss.
I have both a Nikon 105/2.5 AI and a Zeiss 100/2 ZF.2. I will generally grab the Nikon because the results are very similar, but the Nikkor is so much smaller and lighter. It is also much cheaper.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I definitely haven't A/B'd them or really even compared them; I've only tried out a 100MP a couple times. But I did have the 105/2.5 for years and mine was plenty sharp but very clearly not on par with the 100MP or my 100AME. You mention having had 3 of the Nikons; did you have more than one 100MP? I'm wondering if I had a weaker sample Nikon and/or you had a weaker sample Zeiss.
I tested a friend's copy, said friend was always quite picky about getting a good copy of any lens he bought (and bought lenses at a rate similar to Guy & Fred). I was looking at buying it, but since I didn't need f2, I chose to stay with the Nikkor (I had a really good copy of the AI at the time)
It's possible that he had a sample that was good enough to meet his (high) requirements but still wasn't an exemplary copy of the 100MP. IIRC he ended up with a 100AME eventually (we've since fallen out of touch), he found the 100AME to be clearly better than the 100MP.
One of CZ's finest, the 100MP rates so well with a lot of 'noticers', quite a different look to other contemporaries and very different from the also stylish 105/2.5. The genes of the 100MP run through the bloodline of the new Voigtländers too:
“There are many cases where the type is set from past products rather than thinking from scratch. The design of the APO-Lanthar 50mm F2 is the starting point from the macro APO-Lanthar 65mm F2...the macro APO-Lanthar 65mm F2 is a lens that I designed, but its configuration is based on the Macro Planar...there is a background that it finally became the current shape."
Dec 26, 2019 at 06:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have had the Zeiss 100 MP, the Olympus OM 100 f/2, the Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, and the Minolta MD 100 f/2.5 and all are very nice lenses but each had their weaknesses.
The Zeiss 100 MP produced some of my favorite shots, but as others have mentioned the axial CA can crop up and produce problems. It is a very nice for macro, portraits, and landscapes, but it is also pretty big. Of these lenses it was my favorite landscape lens. In the end I have replaced it with the Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 which does not have the CA, and does everything the Zeiss lens does and even a bit better and is about the same size when you add the adapter to the Zeiss 100 MP. All in all I like the Voigtlander 110 quite a bit better.
The Olympus 100 f/2 was my favorite portrait lens of the one's I listed. It has very nice bokeh and shined in that application. It also has a quite close .7M close focus distance with good performance at that distance. It was a quite good but not excellent landscape lens. I have now replaced it with a Nikon 105 f/1.4, which I like even better for portraits. It is bigger yet, but when I don't care about size it works great.
The Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI was a very nice portrait lens but I preferred the Olympus and really the Zeiss as well. I other found my copy of the lens to be noticeably inferior to the other three for landscapes. It wasn't horrible, but you saw CA crop up that needed to be dealt with I post and it wasn't as sharp and contrasty.
The Minolta 100 f/2.5 was my favorite for its size, and it performed OK. It chief virtues were its price and size. I think for size, however, the best choice is the Zeiss C/Y 100 f/3.5. I plan to pick one of those up at some point.
For me I have went away from one lens to do everything. Instead I have decided to get a fantastic macro which also doubles as my landscape lens at this focal length. Then I have a heavier but very wide aperture portrait lens, and finally I am planning to pick up a small lens that will add portability. So, for me it isn't which 100mm, it is which set of 100ish mm lenses to use for my kit.
Must it be manual-only focus? I keep being wowed by the wide-open IQ of the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 Pro D. It's an AF lens, but its manual-focus action is very good—the equal of a brass-helicoid Nikkor in precision, if not in feel. The lens is much sharper than either the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 or the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, has very little CA, and is very light.
My favorite is the E 100 2.8, even though it's a cheap plasticky lens, of which I have two copies just in case one goes bad :-) ... I'd say the CY f3.5 would be my top choice were it not for the E lens. But the E also flares, and is not a lens built to last. Unfortunately, it's the only 100mm lens ever made by Nikkor, and the only one I know along with the 135mm that has a simple Ernostar design. If anyone loves the 135mm f2.8 AI-s rendering, the E lens is like that, but in 100mm FL.
In my limited experience, macro lenses can be painfully difficult to focus at infinity as there are maybe 5 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity. It is for that reason that I never mount my macro lens when I want to nail infinity shots.
And while macro at 100 mm is fun, I sure get a lot more keepers with my longer focal length macro lens as it gives me more working distance, which scares off fewer critters.
I miss the 100MPZE but if I had to pick a 100mm lens I'd go for my 100 Summicron-S and just adapt it to the SL2.. I actually prefer it to the 90/2 SL lens that I own (the 75SL I also own but it's different enough than 100mm to justify both). And I like the rendering over other 100mm (or lenses in that range) on full frame even though it was designed for medium format.
Though back down to earth, the 100MPZE is still one of my favourite lenses.
theHUN wrote:
In my limited experience, macro lenses can be painfully difficult to focus at infinity as there are maybe 5 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity. It is for that reason that I never mount my macro lens when I want to nail infinity shots.
And while macro at 100 mm is fun, I sure get a lot more keepers with my longer focal length macro lens as it gives me more working distance, which scares off fewer critters.
On a tripod and using LiveView, I have no difficulty achieving accurate infinity focus with my manual focus macros (ZE 50/2, SMCP-FA 50/2.8, ZE 100/2, M645 A 120/4). Actually, most of them have accurate infinity focus at the hard stop (not by coincidence). I find it's more tricky to get critical focus on a distant point that's 'nearer than infinity', but still it's not all that difficult (on a tripod, with LV).
jcolwell wrote:
On a tripod and using LiveView, I have no difficulty achieving accurate infinity focus with my manual focus macros (ZE 50/2, SMCP-FA 50/2.8, ZE 100/2, M645 A 120/4). Actually, most of them have accurate infinity focus at the hard stop (not by coincidence). I find it's more tricky to get critical focus on a distant point that's 'nearer than infinity', but still it's not all that difficult (on a tripod, with LV).
Yes, poor phrasing on my end. I was referring to macro lenses that focus a bit past infinity (not sure if it's the lens design or the adapter being slightly off) and so everything far away was a bit more cumbersome (but not impossible) to properly focus.
My 180 mm apo telyt has ~90 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity, so it is easy to nail focus at longer distances. My 180 mm Canon macro has ~5 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity, so it is harder to focus at longer distances. Both the telyt and the canon macro (and my 90 mm Sony macro I had before) focus a little past infinity, so even infinity focus requires attention.
For sure. I owned a couple of Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 E60. As I mentioned, pretty much all of my manual focus Alt lenses have infinity focus 'on' at the hard stop, because if they don't come that way (and it's a keeper) then I get it adjusted. OTOH, AF lenses are a different kettle of tribbles. I use the EF 100/2.8L IS Macro for handheld macro, and occasionally for portraits at events, and it's a fine lens, but it's not my go-to for landscapes (100/2 ZE) or tripod-macro (A 120/4). I'm currently using the CV Apo-Lanthar 180/4 CF SL for the role previously played by the Apo-Telyt-R.
jcolwell wrote:
... As I mentioned, pretty much all of my manual focus Alt lenses have infinity focus 'on' at the hard stop, because if they don't come that way (and it's a keeper) then I get it adjusted ...
I've thought about doing the same (fixing the hard stop at infinity focus). I'm just unsure if it's the lenses that need adjusting or the adapter that needs fine-tuning ... probably both.
