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 Rokkor 50-100mm f3.5; Rokkor bottom??
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Minolta Rokkor 50-100mm f3.5; Rokkor bottom?? Reply with quote

This lens looked sufficiently unusual for me to have a go at winning it. Fortunately, as it was listed as having a stuck aperture, it didn't cost very much. (The aperture was easy to free but really needs to be taken apart as it is not very even at high f#.)

I have been unable to find out anything useful about it on the net so far. About the only concrete information I found was that it was launched in 1964 ( http://thesybersite.com/minolta/historical/Minolta_Lens_Chronology.htm ), so it is certainly an early zoom lens.

It is without doubt one of the least useful zoom lenses I have come across. It is big (135mm long with 77 mm filter thread), heavy (880 g) and has a truly miserable 2 m minimum focus distance. It is also so far from being parfocal that it was hardly worth putting the distance scale on it at all!!

Below are some pictures of the lens itself. I will post sample shots later.

Does anyone has information on this lens?





Although the lens is generally in pretty good condition, some of the optics have this strange golden glitter around their edges. Does anyone know what this is?




This compares it with a (much) later Minolta MD 50mm f1.4 lens. This is hardly a pocket zoom!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These were taken at 100mm focal length at about the minimum focus distance of 2 m. I've applied a modest tweak to the levels as the contrast in the originals is rather low, but there is no other PP. It is rather soft and "glowing" at f3.5, but decent stopped down. I think the bokeh is nice as well.

At f3.5


Crop tt f3.5


At f5.6


Crop at f5.6


At f8


Crop at f8


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These were taken at 50mm. I apologise for the extreme dullness of the pictures, but the 2m min focus distance is a bit of an impediment to creativity (at least for my limited imagination).

Again, there is a slight tweak to the levels, but it is very small in this case.

At f3.5. Again soft and glowing


Crop at f3.5


At f5.6


Crop at f5.6


At f8


Crop at f8


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finaly, I added a small extension tube to the EPL1 and tried some close focus (about 20 cm from the end of the lens) shots. I think these were at f5.6. The focal length is unknown as I was using the zoom control to focus, but they are all near the long end. Actually, I rather like these! Not razor sharp, but nicely rendered.







PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks soft at all apertures but really poor wide open.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strange. Colors look washed out, and soft. I ve never used an early Minolta zoom, but I would expect alot better from one.
Have you shot Minolta lenses before, are you using the same in camera settings?
Is there haze in one of the lower elments?
Anyway every single Minolta lens I've used is extremely color accurate. So it should come out of the camera pretty dead on if the exposure and camera settings are right. Providing the lens isn't damaged of course.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

walter g wrote:
Strange. Colors look washed out, and soft. I ve never used an early Minolta zoom, but I would expect alot better from one.
Have you shot Minolta lenses before, are you using the same in camera settings?
Is there haze in one of the lower elments?
Anyway every single Minolta lens I've used is extremely color accurate. So it should come out of the camera pretty dead on if the exposure and camera settings are right. Providing the lens isn't damaged of course.


I'm puzzled by your comments. The colours look very accurate on my monitor (calibrated iMac 24"). And by accurate, I do mean that, and not richly saturated. I like to try and get things as accurate as I can, so I use "natural" settings in cameras and steer away from over saturating in post processing. It is worth noting that I set a custom white balance against a grey card for these pictures, so I know the WB is correct. Also, it's October and I'm in rainy UK, so vivid colours are not much in evidence.

The question remains, is your dissatisfaction with the colours due to a difference in taste or because there is a problem with how my pictures display on your computer? Perhaps I am missing something out when i export them at reduced size (though Safari displays the web versions exactly like Aperture does the originals for me).

How washed out do you find the colours? Very, or just a touch muted? I've boosted the saturation in the picture below. Does this look better to you?





I would appreciate it if other people could say if they find the colours "washed out", "muted" or maybe even OK!

Mark


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that - on my monitor - the saturation on the last sample is a bit exaggerated. The lightconditions for the recording couldn't give that level of contrasts. The other pictures don't look washed out for me.
May be you can make another sample under more direct sunlight to compare?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark,
I think muted would be a better word, but I haven't calibrated my monitor, so that might be a factor. I haven't tested this early of Minolta zoom so I don't know what to expect from them.
I find almost no info on this lens online, and I did do online magazine searches also. I still wouldn't place this at the bottom of Minolta zooms.
It's a real zoom.Even nowadays it would be reconized for what it is. Smile Price when new was USD $249.50.
The Rokkor 100-200 came out in 1965. It almost looks like they copied a Soligor design. The slider type design. Price when new was USD $184.50. To me that would be the low point of Rokkor zooms, but I haven't tested one yet.
Sooner or later I will own the Rokkor 100-200 because I own the Soligor 100-200, and I want to do a shootout between them.

I'll watch for a copy of the Rokkor 50-100 cheap If I find one I will test it and post the results.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
I think that - on my monitor - the saturation on the last sample is a bit exaggerated. The lightconditions for the recording couldn't give that level of contrasts. The other pictures don't look washed out for me.
May be you can make another sample under more direct sunlight to compare?


Thanks for comments. I agree that the last sample was pushed too far.

It rained ALL day yesterday, and it will be difficult to find any real sunlight today. The following were taken in morning light today. I used exactly the same camera settings as yesterday, but the lens was to f8. The Fuchsia is a little more saturated in this light. I think it is a pretty accurate representation of the actual flower and I am pleased with the way it looks.


#1


#2


PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

walter g wrote:
Mark,
I think muted would be a better word, but I haven't calibrated my monitor, so that might be a factor. I haven't tested this early of Minolta zoom so I don't know what to expect from them.
I find almost no info on this lens online, and I did do online magazine searches also. I still wouldn't place this at the bottom of Minolta zooms.
It's a real zoom.Even nowadays it would be reconized for what it is. Smile Price when new was USD $249.50.
The Rokkor 100-200 came out in 1965. It almost looks like they copied a Soligor design. The slider type design. Price when new was USD $184.50. To me that would be the low point of Rokkor zooms, but I haven't tested one yet.
Sooner or later I will own the Rokkor 100-200 because I own the Soligor 100-200, and I want to do a shootout between them.

I'll watch for a copy of the Rokkor 50-100 cheap If I find one I will test it and post the results.


Walter,

Thanks for taking the time to do some research. $250 in the mid-1960's must have made this a very expensive lens. This sample cost me 17.50 including delivery. Very Happy The lack of info on the web would seem to suggest it did not sell very well, but the minimum focus of 2 m and its size must have been a handicap.

I've actually grown to rather like the results it produces in close up with the extension tube. It's not really useable at f3.5, but f5.6 is sharp enough when one gets the focus right. (I should mention that it has been windy and with such close focusing it does not take much movement of the flower for it to move out of the depth of field). It has a smooth rendering that I think works well with flowers. A bit of PP adjustment of the levels is needed, but that is to be expected of a 45-year old optical design I think.

The condition of the lens is quite good. The front elements are very clean because the front cap was fitted. But the rear cap was missing and so the rear element surface was really dirty and this has resulted in some coating damage, but it is quite minor. There is no hazing, but there is that odd golden glistening around the edges of some of the elements that i tried to photograph at the start of the thread. When I took the rear group out to clean, I noticed the same effect around the rim of the doublet. Therefore, it might be some deterioration of the cementing, but I've never seen anything like this before. It looks like fool's gold imbedded in the rim of the lenses!


Mark


PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, the shots you took today look dead on color wise. I know what you meen about the wind, every time I go out to shoot flowers a breeze comes out of nowhere. Smile
I think you got a very good price on the lens. It's really nice to see pictures from a lens, that you can't find samples for on the net.
If that is glue deteriorating, I wouldn't think it would have an effect unless you were shooting directly into a bright light.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:52 pm    Post subject: Rokkor 50 100mm f 3.5 lenses Reply with quote

I have at the moment the 80 160mm Rokkor Zoom, big & heavy
Close focus problem is solved with a suplimentary screw on, like a filter
I wonder if they made one for the 50 100 lens.
I have seen quite afew 80 160 lenses on ebay but have never seen
another one with the extra (Filter) I was just lucky I assume
I have just seen today the 50 100 lens,they all seem to be f3.5 lenses
on ebay I shall give it a bid.

mjkthelast