Quick Comparison: Printing-Nikkor 105A and Minolta 5400

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Quick Comparison: Printing-Nikkor 105A and Minolta 5400

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

This is a quick comparison at 1:1 I did today. Printing-Nikkor 105mm "A" version (PN105A) and Minolta 5400 Scanner ens (MN5400).

My setup doesn't handle long working distance optics very well. (yet :D , I can see my wallet being empty soon... again)

The lighting is different, in favour of the MN5400 lens. I used a Mamiya 645 Auto-Bellows on the PN105A and standard M42 tubes for the MN5400. There is a clear misalignment issue with the PN105A images since the bellows allows tilt and shift, thus being less precise.

Only the centre portion is showed. Photography subject is a Chinese wafer.

Image
View the full resolution image here: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7887/471 ... 5b2a_o.jpg


Like I alluded to in another thread, at 1:1, the PN105A lens is very hard to beat. There's slight softness at f/2.8, the images are cleaner at f/3.3 and a slight improvement at f/4. The MN5400 is comparable to the PN105A at f/2.8, giving pretty good results. The difference however isn't that significant, both are really good lenses.

The MN5400 can be had for anywhere from $100 to $500+, salvaged from the scanner itself. The PN105A on the other hand is very expensive. Another advantage of the MN5400 is its size, it's tiny and requires far less extension to achieve 1:1. Optically however, I would give it to the PN105A. Even my flimsy bellows with alignment issues gave a superior result. Another major advantage of the PN105A is the image circle of 60mm, allowing some panorama stitching.

I plan to run a better comparison once I upgrade some components. Going to try to keep the exposure area and lighting consistent this time too. Bad lighting ruined a lot of details in the PN105A exposure. I also plan to compare the MN5400 lens to the Nikon Rayfact OFM20119MN (NRF95), both at 2:1.

Will write up a semi-formal blog post and share my findings soon.
Last edited by Macro_Cosmos on Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5948
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Is this the PN105A or PN105? I found my PN105A to be best wide open. I also find it outperforms the DiMage near 1x, but the DiMage is my best finite lens at 1.8x.

Edited to add: the Printing Nikkor is so good that even with a 1.4x converter, it is still better than most lenses at 1.4x.

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Lou Jost wrote:Is this the PN105A or PN105? I found my PN105A to be best wide open. I also find it outperforms the DiMage near 1x, but the DiMage is my best finite lens at 1.8x.
Great point, I actually cannot really tell. Mine has been modified in a rather crude manner by the seller. At least they didn't foolishly pull the glass out to clear that small speck of fungus. It seems like the "A" version however. The rear is rather long, there is the M=1 designation. The "Made in Japan" text is in line with the silver screw unlike those non-A versions, being diagonally under the screw.

This is mine, note the text and the silver screw.
Image

PN105A (coinimaging.com)
If you can give me the length of the section marked out, it will help a lot.
Image

PN105, found online. Note the text and the silver screw.
Image

I'm fairly certain mine is the newer A version, wew. I shall edit my post.

As you can see, the lens has been modified to a weird M52 mount. Don't exactly know the thread pitch of the screw mount. It's neither x0.75 nor x1, and obviously not SM2. I know I won't make another purchase from this place again. M45x0.75 doesn't require a rocket mechanist to figure out, no clue why they would ruin such a lens with this rubbish crude adapter.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5948
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That PN105A from coinimaging is my copy (it belonged to Ray when it was tested by coinimaging.com), so I can measure that exact same lens for you. The distance you asked for is between 59 and 60mm, best estimate 59.5mm.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

It's easy to tell difference between versions. There are 3 features that can distinguish:

1) Length of rear group. This is what you and Lou are discussing

2) Curvature of front and rear elements. The elements have a spherical curve on the first version. They are flat on the "A" version

3) Serial Numbers. Probably the simplest to look for. First versions start with 32, and mostly 323. I actually have never seen a 324 so most likely fewer than 1000 were made. "A" versions start with 50, and are mostly 500, but I have seen 501 but not 502, so likely fewer than 2000 were produced

Edited to add a 4th feature:

4) Finish. Early versions have a smooth painted finish (at least most of the ones I've seen). "A" versions are sandblasted and black anodized.

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

ray_parkhurst wrote:It's easy to tell difference between versions. There are 3 features that can distinguish:

1) Length of rear group. This is what you and Lou are discussing

2) Curvature of front and rear elements. The elements have a spherical curve on the first version. They are flat on the "A" version

3) Serial Numbers. Probably the simplest to look for. First versions start with 32, and mostly 323. I actually have never seen a 324 so most likely fewer than 1000 were made. "A" versions start with 50, and are mostly 500, but I have seen 501 but not 502, so likely fewer than 2000 were produced

Edited to add a 4th feature:

4) Finish. Early versions have a smooth painted finish (at least most of the ones I've seen). "A" versions are sandblasted and black anodized.
Thanks for the information, mine is definitely the A version which is great.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic