Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 200mm 1:4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:53 am    Post subject: Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 200mm 1:4 Reply with quote
As it is too hot today to walk thru the bird area and the village (apprx. 30 degrees centigrade) I've done some sample pictures of the rose bush in front of my house. The bush was under direct sun light which caused relatively hard contrasts.
The details about the lens could be found here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/176-minolta-200mm-f4
http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/#200
My copy is MD version II with slightly reduced length and weight. It's only slightly bigger than my Elmar 135mm but better for e.g. bird shooting as it equals 300mm FOV on FF.

It is said that it is one of the best 200mm MF lenses ever and a good candidate for the forthcoming Sony 50MP sensor. At least as good as the Minolta 200/2.8 APO but in comparison a bargain. I don't need F2.8 on a 200mm lens anyway. Too difficult to focus correctly. The big advantage over the APO is the relatively small size and weight. Lens shade is collapsible built in.

However, here are my sample pictures (F4, F8 and crop of F8 ) as usually not manipulated whatsoever and shot with my beloved Ricoh GXR-M without low-pass filtering for better details (like the Sony A7R). So the results may vary on another camera.
I must say that the quality is very impressive and hardly any different at F4 to F8. From F16 the quality goes down very minimal step by step to F32. I doubt that the Leica Telyt would be able to beat it. So I will most probably save the money for something else. Wink





PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BTW, I've found an old picture taken with this lens and my Minolta X-500 at a Miles Davis concert 1984 in Austria/Wiesen on B&W film (Ilford FP4; shot free hand, developed and scanned by myself):



PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the same lens and it is very good, it is prone to purple fringing, but very light and quite compact.

Although I need to add that I also had the Minolta 200/2.8 AF APO and it is is clearly on another level, the MD 200/2.8 is probably more similar.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padam wrote:
I have the same lens and it is very good, it is prone to purple fringing, but very light and quite compact.

Although I need to add that I also had the Minolta 200/2.8 AF APO and it is is clearly on another level, the MD 200/2.8 is probably more similar.


I didn't see any fringing. Maybe yours is another sub variant or it behaves differently on other cameras/sensors. I also didn't read anything about fringing in the related articles.

Actually it's one of my rare MD Rokkors, which I've bought brand new already in the 1980's. So it's still in very excellent condition. It's in any case my most compact and handy 200mm lens. Unfortunately not directly usable on my A850. Only in combination with the original 2x M/A converter 300-S which results in a decent 400mm lens. Maybe I should test this also sometimes; could be a usable option.

Well, the modern AF lenses are a little bit different and there is some time in between. I don't have the AF 200/2.8 APO as I have the AF 80-200/2.8 APO HS instead. I just mentioned the findings of the other testers on the given links.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems a very good lens. I have version MD 1 and also bought it after reading about it at that artaphot site. I made a comparison with my Topcor 5.6/200 and the results were hard to find much difference, so given the Rokkor is faster, it is the better.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Seems a very good lens. I have version MD 1 and also bought it after reading about it at that artaphot site. I made a comparison with my Topcor 5.6/200 and the results were hard to find much difference, so given the Rokkor is faster, it is the better.


Well, I don't have too many 200mm primes. Wink

However, besides of some zooms which cover this focus length I have also the Pentax Takumar M42 in F3.5 which is a really heavy and bulky monster in comparison. I still didn't compare them directly but I doubt that the Pentax will be as good. In terms of portability the Pentax lens is far behind anyway. At least it's good to know that the Topcor isn't better. I was already thinking about this lens alternatively to the Leica Telyt. I have only the zoom lens (F4.7) from Topcon for this focal length. Those plans are gone now. The Minolta lens is more than good enough....


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the MC Tele Rokkor 200/3.5, not sure if it's related in any way in terms of design. It's quite large and heavy and not really that good. Although I don't really have anything to compare it with.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
I have the MC Tele Rokkor 200/3.5, not sure if it's related in any way in terms of design. It's quite large and heavy and not really that good. Although I don't really have anything to compare it with.


Well, that's a different lens with a different lens design of 6 lenses in 4 groups opposed to 5 lenses in 5 groups of the later F4 version.
Additionally there are 3 different versions available of the F3.5 model and only the last one with the rubber ring for focusing should be the better one compared to the first two full metal versions. I never had one myself but according to other testers even the best (newest) version of the F3.5 lens is behind the optical quality of the F4 version. Even the F4.5 version beats the best F3.5 version but is still behind the F4 lens, although it also has already a similar design of 5/5 like the F4 lens and can therefore also be seen as the pre-version of the F4 lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I paid something like 10€ for the 3.5 so I guess it's fair. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
Well, I paid something like 10€ for the 3.5 so I guess it's fair. Smile


Thats a bargain, I have one and think its superb. Quite the best 200mm I've owned. I've not had a f4 version, but may consider it as its a lot smaller


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to see how my "famous" lens is doing in combination with the original "Minolta MD 2x Tele Converter 300-S" which was designed to work with this and some other Minolta lenses, I've done another sample picture today. Same procedure as always, i.e. no PP manipulation.
The picture was taken fully open at F4 with my Ricoh GXR (whole picture and 100% crop).

As it was rather stormy outside I don't know whether the softness of the crop is a result of the weather or of the combination. Therefore I will repeat the test under better conditions as soon as this will be possible.

However, besides the little softness of the crop compared to the picture without converter from yesterday (no wind) I would say that the picture is more than usable and even now far superior to my old Tokina 400mm/F6.3 lens which I gave away already long time ago due to lack of optical quality.

Finally this combination delivers a decent 400mm/f8 lens which leads to 600mm FOV equivalence on the GXR.

As soon as the weather will allow it I will shoot some storks and geese with that combination. Wink




PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same as before (converter and fully open at F4) but without wind factor.
Bear in mind that this is a long distance shot and therefore the light and air plays a certain role for the final picture quality especially at rather noon time. So it may be far better in the morning or in the evening.




PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was on my front porch this evening doing some comparisons with 200mm lenses. I really didn't realize that I have seven. Anyway, while I had the Rokkor 4/200 on the NEX-5N (MD 1 version), I took these shots at the top of a distant tree where there were some dead branches and a dragonfly. The first images are included just to give some reference of distance. They are followed by 100% crops.

Images were taken at f/4 and f/8. There is virtually no CA in either image. There is some change in sharpness, but the lens does perform well at full f/4.


f/4



f/8



PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
I was on my front porch this evening doing some comparisons with 200mm lenses. I really didn't realize that I have seven. Anyway, while I had the Rokkor 4/200 on the NEX-5N (MD 1 version), I took these shots at the top of a distant tree where there were some dead branches and a dragonfly. The first images are included just to give some reference of distance. They are followed by 100% crops.
Images were taken at f/4 and f/8. There is virtually no CA in either image. There is some change in sharpness, but the lens does perform well at full f/4.


That underlines my statement that both versions are nothing else than excellent; at least on Sony and Ricoh cameras. Thank's for sharing.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are the missing geese and stork photos. Same procedure as always. All shot wide open at F4 (free hand). First two pictures including 100% crop:











PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
miran wrote:
Well, I paid something like 10€ for the 3.5 so I guess it's fair. Smile


Thats a bargain, I have one and think its superb. Quite the best 200mm I've owned. I've not had a f4 version, but may consider it as its a lot smaller


As most know, there are several versions of the 200/4 and I was having a hard time telling them apart, but I think I have it now. The lighter version is shorter, and you can tell in a pic: at infinity focus (which you can also tell if you can see the scale in the shot), consider the distant between the end of the focus ring grip, and the edge of the hood, collapsed.

On the light version they nearly touch, on the 100 g heavier version, there is quite a distance between them:






OK now a quiz: which is which? Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You might also look at the diamond versus dot shape of the aperture/distance guide.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
You might also look at the diamond versus dot shape of the aperture/distance guide.


good point Smile But do all the light ones have it?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The first lens is the latest MC version with newer MD coatings.The second is the last version bearing Rokkor name,just before last,plain"" MD Minoltas were introduced.Optically the same,with very good IQ on FF.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
You might also look at the diamond versus dot shape of the aperture/distance guide.


good point Smile But do all the light ones have it?


I think so.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well my lens came, and I now know it better than planned LOL

BTW diamond or dot does not indicate the version. This one is 405 grams on the nose, with a dot Smile Late MD.

It's got some scuffs, but the glass seems OK, however, the aperture would not completely open, and it was shooting the same ISO and shutter as the OM 200/5 so I took it apart, and now it will open up. Cleaned the glass while I was in there.

They do seem to be saving some money in the build, lots of plastic, and after using nice tight RF lenses all the time, this seems pretty primitive. But looks to be sharp at f/4, will test tomorrow. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is typical by the late light versions is that the diameter of the aperture ring is bigger creating a slight slope on the lens body.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
200/4 by unoh7, on Flickr

I misspoke: no dot or diamond.

I think easy way to tell is the gap between hood edge collapsed and focus ring at infinity.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Well my lens came, and I now know it better than planned LOL

BTW diamond or dot does not indicate the version. This one is 405 grams on the nose, with a dot Smile Late MD.

It's got some scuffs, but the glass seems OK, however, the aperture would not completely open, and it was shooting the same ISO and shutter as the OM 200/5 so I took it apart, and now it will open up. Cleaned the glass while I was in there.

They do seem to be saving some money in the build, lots of plastic, and after using nice tight RF lenses all the time, this seems pretty primitive. But looks to be sharp at f/4, will test tomorrow. Smile


How has it worked out for you?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Had this lens out late in the day last weekend. All at f/4. The first one is not perfect focus because the pretty bird wouldn't hold still.









Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3