Minolta's best

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I've never been much of a Minolta user, although I do have a decent respect for their lens and camera quality -- especially from the MC and early MD days. In an earlier life as a camera dealer, however, I owned two stand-outs: the MC 16mm f/2.8 full frame fisheye and the MD 100-500mm f/8 zoom.

The 16mm fisheye was a remarkable lens. I wish I would have taken more pics with it than I did. It was inventory, though, and as I recall, I ended up selling the lens before I got the pics back from the lab. And they were wild! The lens had a set of built-in filters, too -- built-in being just about the only way you could go with a 16mm fisheye.

The 100-500mm f/8 zoom I was attracted to just because of its focal range. As far as sharpness goes, at 500mm, it was just okay. But it was a cool looking lens:

It needs a ruler put next to it. As I dimly recall, it was about 15" long. I shot a few slides with it, but I was shooting freehand and only a couple came out without camera shake. But those two showed that it was unremarkable optically.

Some folks here are most likely aware of the Joseph D. Cooper handbooks for Nikon. He also wrote one for Minolta. I have a copy of both the Nikon and Minolta System Handbooks (each is a two-book set). Mine show copyright dates of 1972, 1973 by Joseph D. Cooper and 1976 by the American Book Publishing Company. So it has all the MC lenses of that era, including the optical diagrams.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

Mir · Expire: 2017-09-30

Thanks to all for your input !

Now... one of two things...
Prices will rise on most of the selected ones
and/or i'll be ruined....

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Yup, I started collecting Minolta AF lenses last year while they can still be had cheap.

I've got 6 rolls of film shot with the 3.5-4.5/35-105 and 3.5-4.5/28-85 to develop now,I'll be sure to post samples.

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

here you will find specs for every Minolta AF/Sony (incl. Zeiss ZA) lens:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

You can't make anything wrong with most of them (especially the first generation with metal focus ring), another real gem is the tiny Minolta AF 4.5/100-200 which most times can be found really cheap.

But stay away from any "Power Zoom" or "xi" lenses.. also those with the build in lens cap (35-80 & 80-200) or lenses which was avaible in black and silver.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Yes, those built-in lens cap lenses are awful, sadly I own both of them. Not all the Xi lenses should be avoided, some are very good like the AF 35-200 xi F4.5-5.6, AF 28-80 xi F4-5.6, AF 100-300 xi F4.5-5.6 and AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5.

vlousada · Joined: 11 Dec 2010 Posts: 345 Location: Portugal

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

These two lenses both work perfectly and have excellent IQ, best of all they cost me less than 25ukp for the pair. You simply can't match this level of quality at anything like this price with either Canon or Nikon. I have the Nikon AF 28-85, it's probably as good as the Minolta 28-85 but cost 4x as much on ebay, doesn't feel as well built either. I also have a Canon 24-85 and it's a decent ens but can't mach the Minolta and is flimsy feeling by comparison. It cost 6x as much and I got it cheap. In an informal shootout between the Minolta 35-105 and a Canon L 24-105 last week using an EOS 7D and a Sony A55 the Minolta was much better in sharpness, distortion, colours, every aspect apart from flare and even then, the Canon was barely better.

Phenix jc · Joined: 19 Dec 2009 Posts: 398 Location: France

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland

My first tries with Rokkor lenses impressed me a lot.So I decided to buy some more.
Mechanical and optical results are top and prices are still acceptable.
Focusing is easy and precise . If I compare to my Takumars, it is not as smooth but I wonder if it's not preferable.

I was in France last week end and added two lenses to my collection:
MC 135/2.8 PF
There are so many versions of 135mm 2.8 that it is difficult to make a decision . This one seems quiet good though I read the 4/4 versions are supposed to be the best.

MC 300/5,6
This lens is really compact and fits my A7 quiet well.

If anybody has some experience with those two lenses on FF , a feed back is welcome.

Mir · Expire: 2017-09-30

So, thanks to you all, i've gathered :

MD W.ROKKOR-X 2.8/24
MD W.ROKKOR 2/28
MC W.ROKKOR-SI 2.5/28
MC W.ROKKOR-HH 1.8/35
MD 3.5/35-70 Macro
MC ROKKOR-X-PG 1.4/50
MC ROKKOR-X 1.2/58
MD MACRO ROKKOR-X 3.5/100

I'm still hoping to eventually get an MD 2.8/20, an MD 2.8/200 and one of them 85mm...
Unless advised otherwise...

Tervueren · Expire: 2014-11-08

That's some nice Minolta glass there Mir, I've been looking for the MD 200 for quite a while myself but I guess those that own them are keeping them and those selling are to much money for my pocket lol, I used to have the af version and that was a very good lens.

clockwork247 · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 79

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

That's a nice collection you've started Mir, congrats.

Ivan Lee · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:00 pm Post subject:

Am I the only one that thinks that the 24mm MD is better than the 24mm MC version? I had both at the same time and did a comparison test between the two... the MD version is a bit less wide but sharper wide open, rendering looks the same.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Well, I doubt any people will have owned both and if they have, they will have directly compared them in such detail.

I have Konica Hexanon 2.8/24, Nikon Nikkor AI 2.8/24, Yashica ML 2.8/24 and Minolta AF 2.824.

They are all different but all are, imho excellent so I don't care much about the indiosyncracies of their characters as the important thing is the overall impression of the images they make and all of them make images that please me greatly.

P.S. What does wide open sharpness matter with a 24mm lens? Which such lenses, 2.8 is for focussing, you shoot them stopped down in almost all cases, that is how they were designed.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

I love to take snaps in streets at night(low light photography). Fast wide angle(~28mm) which is sharp at wide open can reduce the ISO and maintain a not-so-slow speed in low light.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Thanks for the info Michael.

Nighttime photography is something I like too, but I've never done it without a tripod. For me, the most important aspect of a lens when it comes to suitability for nighttime use is how the lens handles flare from light sources such as street lamps. One example of this is my Sigma 21-35 AF, an excellent lens, but inferior for nighttime shots to my Tokina 20-35 AF. The Sigma has a very large very curved front element whereas the Tokina has a small, much flatter one and the Tokina has much less flare as a result. Both lenses, having modern multicoatings, usually work better than a legacy 28mm prime, but I put that down to the older coatings. In England, we still use the old style low pressure sodium street lights in many places and these put out a narrowband orange light. This means you often get an overall orange glare to images. I believe that in Asia, most streetlights are a metal halide type that gives out a much broader spectrum of light, so conditions are a bit different.

Anyways, more than one way to skin a cat and I do understand using a prime at a large aperture, but would always prefer to close a lens at least one stop.

Spokklocka · Joined: 14 Jan 2015 Posts: 50

I quite like the MD 300 4,5. It's OK wide open and rather good at f/5,6 and it doesn't restrict you to the parking lot.

The 50 1,2 is nicer without a lens turbo than the MC 58 1,4 (later version) but with a lens turbo I prefer the latter.

Recently acquired the MD Rokkor (not last version) 28 2 and it has a bit of distortion and mushy corners at f/2 but barrel can be somewhat corrected and the thing appears rather sharp across the frame from f/8. Wide open the bokeh appears rather wild, must experiment with it further.

Rick1779 · Expire: 2014-06-06

The underrated Rokkor 45/2 wonderful and cheap
MC W.Rokkor-HH 35/1.8 heavy but fast and pretty sharp