Comparison of lenses Minolta MC Macro Rokkor QE 100mm 1:3.5 (Hills&Valleys/Knurled, MCII) and Minolta MD macro 100mm 1:4 (New-MD, MDIII)
This comparison is correct only for conditions and equipment used for tests. Test results can differ if any element is changed.
Tested lenses reviews:
Long distance – sharpness:
Test description: Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. Targets (buildings) were fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters. All shots were made with apertures from fully opened and up to F16. ISO-100. Shutter Speed – depends on light (camera A-mode). SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot to exclude focus-shift.
Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cut into 300×200 px elements (100% crops), combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.
‘What does it mean?’ – my conclusion:
This test is enough ‘synthetic’ – usually, nobody is going to take landscapes with macro lenses and in tele-diapason. But in any way, we have the winner: it’s easy to see that modern MD version is noticeably better than older Rorror. Lenses became equal over the whole frame just at F8.
I wouldn’t say that MC Rokkor is a bad one, you know that a macro-photography just only starts from apertures around F8. The IQ of this lens is still usable, but it attracts mostly by unique feeling in the hands and strange construction. So, yes, I like to keep this Rokkor, but for a real photo-session, I’ll take the MD.