Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300mm 1:4.5 IF

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

As before with my MD Tele Rokkor 200mm I've done some test shots.
The more detailed circumstances could be read in the other thread:
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-tele-rokkor-200mm-14-t71449.html
I don't want to repeat everything here.

Details about the lens:
http://www.geocities.ws/mikkonis/reviewed/md300mm.html
and of course in the other links of the 200mm thread.

Same method as before but another bush at greater distance.

Well, the lens isn't bad at all but I think that my Minolta AF 300mm 1:4 APO G HS lens is superior. However, the AF one is at least 3 times as expensive on the used market, so it should be better. The Rokkor lens is relatively handy compared to the AF lens and my Super Takumar 300/4 and due to its internal focusing mechanism it doesn't change in length like the Pentax or the older Rokkors.
It equals to 450mm FOV on FF on the shown pictures shot with the Ricoh GXR-M. It's already usable fully open. The picture quality doesn't really change if stopped down.

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1662

I have a very good luck, could sell my MD 4,5/300 IF.

Very strong CA, but very, very strong.

Some minolta lenses suffer from CA:

24/2,8 MC (the MD version lost in colors and contrast, but win in CA).

50/1,4 MC 1,4, 2, 2,8 and 3,5 ugly CA

But none of them so strong like the MD 300/4,5 IF

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

That's a good question, Thomas. I had bad CA From a number of lenses until I got the NEX-5N, then hardly any.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1662

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Thanks for reply, papasito.

Besides the MC 24mm (I only have the MD version) I have all of your mentioned lenses, but none of your cameras.
I mainly use the old MF lenses on my Ricoh GXR-M which is known to react somehow differently on some MF lenses than some of the NEX's.
I must admit, that I didn't test those lenses more detailed in respect to CA but I didn't realize anything special up to now. However, there are special situations where almost all lenses produce such artifacts more or less; even new ones which are specially designed for the use on digital cameras.
Furthermore it is also known that there are different sub-versions around over the time Minolta produced such lenses, i.e. there are different MC and MD sub-versions around. Some of them are known to be better and some of them are not so good.
So it may be always a good advice to check for known issues related to certain specific combinations of versions and camera combinations. That's all what I can say for the moment. I also didn't use the MD 300mm on smaller apertures than F8 so far, but mainly wide open to reduce the risk of camera shake.
However, if it would happen to a annoying extent I would most probably remove such artifacts in Photoshop. That is not really difficult as there is a ready made functionality for such picture improvements available as part of the program.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Odd. I've never considered my MC Rokkor PG 1.4/50 to have problem CA. In certain circumstances, all of my lenses will display some amount. I find the Rokkors pretty well corrected. Here's a picture I never did anything with post camera. It was (mistakenly) taken at f/1.4 and obviously overexposed. Look hard and you'll find something, but very manageable in my mind.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

One more example at infinity landscape with Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C; i.e. 450mm FF FOV equivalent):

Shot RAW at F11 with minor adjustments in LR6. Focus point was the blue/white sign.

100 % crop for pixel peeping purposes:

IMHO not bad at all. At wider apertures the lens appears to be a little bit softer but still usable.

Example WO at F4.5:

AE Conrady · Joined: 16 Jan 2016 Posts: 16 Location: Hamburg Germany

For the record and for better understanding of optical design:

Aberrations including CA (chromatic Aberration) are defined only in the image plane.
Because of this, a short distance picture like this is not a proof for CA.

It is merely a proof that one can make a good lens looking very bad.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Here is a comparison shot from my reference lens in 300m, the Minolta AF 300mm/F4 HS APO used MF on Ricoh GXR-M fully open at F4.

100% crop of the center:

This lens is better WO at F4 than the MD 300 at F11.

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20185/9498_DSC05925_1.jpg

Taken handheld in Norfolk.
Nice lens, light and handy to take on a walk
No cropping, no correction just jpeg from the camera. Does not seem to have too much CA...
Fully open
MD 300 mm f4.5

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4068 Location: Switzerland

shapencolour · Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270

Despite it's behaviour in tests,real life pictures taken with MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5 on the FF camera are pretty nice without much tweaking in the PP.

Sony A72+MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5 at f11
https://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/U951I1523211449.SEQ.0.jpg

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

Steve,

I did not find the lens in your comparison... but on the artaphot website, I found this

"At f4.5 the detail resolution in the image center is very good, and purple fringing (LoCAs) is well controlled. However, the corners there are strong CAs."... somebody agrees with me... Wink

and yes I have an APS... so it may help

... still I was surprised I could not find CA on this "limited" quality picture

Of course, I am an amateur and enjoyed taking this 700 g lens on a light APS camera on a walk while Temperature was 25+C in Norfolk (probably only twice a decade... but it happened in May 2018...) .

... and I would probably need an electric caddie Rolling Eyes

to take a full frame body with a 450mm lens...

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4068 Location: Switzerland

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

I've acquired a Lumix GX80 MFT camera for travel purposes and also because I don't want to carry my awful expensive, heavy and large equipment on the motorbike (e.g. constant vibrations may ruin the antishake mechanism).
However, as my original Panasonic Lumix AF lenses only cover focal lengths from 12 to 200 mm I started to test some possible variants for the long end; i.e. above 200mm.

This is the first test with my MD 300/4.5 uncropped fully open and shot handheld (clickable for best quality viewing), antishake on:

The big advantage of MFT is the usage of only the sweet spot of any FF lens; additionally the GX80 skipped the anti-aliasing filtering for better sharpness and the angle of view is equivalent to 600mm on my Sony A7R II.

To make a long story short: I'm quite impressed. The combination GX80 (named GX85 in some markets) with the Minolta MD 300/4.5 I.F. makes a lot of sense; i.e. seems to be a strong combination, particularly because the MD 300/4.5 is rather small and light, compared to many other lenses in this focal length.

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1318 Location: Conwy N Wales

Looks like a good result to me, particularly given the distinctly dull lighting.
i still have my old G1, 12Mpx, rather noisy as soon as the ASA is upped - it was very cheap s/h even 5yrs ago. Mainly used for ebay pics, occasionally for playing with other mount lenses (I have pretty much the range of cheap adapters for this). Its evf I have to say still measures up as a very decent one. How do you like the 2.76MPx off centre one on the GX80?

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4068 Location: Switzerland

The image shown above is 2048 x 1367 px (=2.8 MP). I'm not impressed (yet). If the image is sharp and without LoCAs at 16 MP, then I'll be impressed!

Gr Wink

S

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4068 Location: Switzerland