[Klaus]

Not the greatest of the bunch:

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1160-minolta100f25

[Rover]

Interestingly bad but in a different way than the Takumar. :-)

[Klaus]

I was a little surprised by the bad results of the Rokkor. But the other Rokkors weren't stellar either.

Anyway, Canon will be next.

[Rover]

LOL... I've only just realized that each of the lenses tested thus far has subtly different parameters. Like they're a 2x2 mathematical matrix of 100mm, 105mm, f/2.5, f/2.8.

[davidmanze]

The extra element of the Rokkor has done nothing in terms of sharpness and probably exacerbates the lack of contrast,(coatings?) ... Lateral aberrations are also on the wild side ...... round bokeh balls (very much the rage these days) are confined to it's widest aperture where it just isn't sharp .... I can' see much to recommend choosing this lens overall !

[Klaus]

Formally I agree. However, if you just want the best performance you are always better off with a modern lens - e.g. the Sigma 90mm f/2.8 in this specific lens class.

I'd say that vintage lenses should offer something extra. The Rokkor produces dreamy results. Which is an extra. But it's not a good lens. ;-)

[Rover]

Would be interesting to see a test of a comparable modern lens just so that the reader's could see what has changed on the field over the years. But I don't think there's a lot of non-macro 100mm f/2.8 (-ish) lenses now.

There was of course the Sony STF 100mm f/2.8... but it's not really a fair comparison I guess. That probably leaves the (aforementioned) Sigma 90mm as the only valid point of comparison? Or does the 110mm Apo-Lanthar also count?

P.S. there's a clearer point of reference for the 135mm f/2.8 bunch in the Zeiss Batis but I have doubts it is easy to procure, else you probably would've tested it a long time ago...

[Klaus]

So you want to tease me into buying the APO Lanthar 110mm again? ;-)

[Rover]

Nope, the APO-Lanthar was an afterthought on my part. I don't remember it reviewed though.