MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

testing my lenses - part 75 - Minolta MD Rokkor 135mm/3.5
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:03 pm
Post subject: testing my lenses - part 75 - Minolta MD Rokkor 135mm/3.5
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:03 pm
Post subject: testing my lenses - part 75 - Minolta MD Rokkor 135mm/3.5
Reply












Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
nixland wrote:
Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.


yeah, i also like this lens


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Where are my sunglasses??!


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Minolfan wrote:
Where are my sunglasses??!


?


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Very contrasty and sharp - nearly too much for my eyes!


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Minolfan wrote:
Very contrasty and sharp - nearly too much for my eyes!


Smile


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:47 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:47 pm
Post subject:
Reply
nixland wrote:
Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.

+1


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Very impressive lens, any chance of a picture of the lens ? I'd like to see if it's the same as the one I've got.


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Is this the MD X version, or the last one made that was just marked MD.
I've tried to buy this lens a few times because I knew it's performance and keep getting distracted by other auctions.
I actually bought this lens on the Bay once in a BIN, and it was refunded because he said he didn't have it anymore. Evil or Very Mad
The last MD version is te one I'm after.


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:35 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:35 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Lloydy wrote:
Very impressive lens, any chance of a picture of the lens ? I'd like to see if it's the same as the one I've got.





Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
mine looks the same but it's a 2.8, whether that makes it a better lens I don't know, but if it's nearly as good as yours I'll be happy.
The only problem is the back element is fungused so it's got to come apart.


Post
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
new samples using E-M5









Post
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
Very, very good rendering.

My 2,8 has a similar rendering. Nice lens.


Post
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
Very nice again.
I have the 2.8 version and a beautiful old 2.8 one from the sixties that I did not test yet.


Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
I just bought this lens partially because of this thread.

There is something I was wondering about. Nearly all your photos, regardless of gear and glass, are very crisp and have a lot of pop. I wonder if, in addition to your obvious skills as a photographer, if you have a signature PP style? How much sharpening do you use for example?

Thanks!


Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
rudolfkremers wrote:
I just bought this lens partially because of this thread.

There is something I was wondering about. Nearly all your photos, regardless of gear and glass, are very crisp and have a lot of pop. I wonder if, in addition to your obvious skills as a photographer, if you have a signature PP style? How much sharpening do you use for example?

Thanks!


i use gimphoto program and unsharp mask settings of radius 5,0 amount 0,5 threshold 0 (always same setting). other than that, i correct black point and white point in input levels
correcting black point is the one thing that most often gives a pop to the photo


Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:11 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:11 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Like 1

Outstanding images!

From the diamond shape mark on the lens, this version is the MD-I model.
It's their 4 elements in 4 groups design. I have a copy under their Celtic label. It's one of my favorite 135s as it's razor sharp.
The f/2.8 version of the MD-I is also excellent, and highly sought after.

For the poster seeking the last MD version, also known as the MD-III, that design was different being a 5/5 formula. It's the same as the Rokkor MD-II formula, but dropped the Rokkor label, and the body revised.
Note that Rokkor and Rokkor-X are the same, the -X was added by North American marketing.

Edit: Oops, just realized this is a resurrected thread.


Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Taking about the 2,8/135 Md rokkor 4/4 versión, is good. But it lacks contrast in very lighted images because the coated and suffers a normal to high CA. Burned highlights.
The only problem is the coated. Anyway gives the character to the Rokkors.


Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
WolverineX wrote:
rudolfkremers wrote:
I just bought this lens partially because of this thread.

There is something I was wondering about. Nearly all your photos, regardless of gear and glass, are very crisp and have a lot of pop. I wonder if, in addition to your obvious skills as a photographer, if you have a signature PP style? How much sharpening do you use for example?

Thanks!


i use gimphoto program and unsharp mask settings of radius 5,0 amount 0,5 threshold 0 (always same setting). other than that, i correct black point and white point in input levels
correcting black point is the one thing that most often gives a pop to the photo


Well, it certainly works!
Thanks for the explanation!


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
After seeing this thread I made a search around and just received an offer. The attached images show it's the very same version. I think I'll take it Rolling Eyes.


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
WNG555 wrote:
For the poster seeking the last MD version, also known as the MD-III, that design was different being a 5/5 formula. It's the same as the Rokkor MD-II formula, but dropped the Rokkor label, and the body revised.


The 5/5 version appears to be even better:

135/3.5 (4/4, 420g):

135/3.5 (5/5, 265g/285g):

135/2.8 (4/4, 535g):

135/2.8 (5/5, 365g/385g):

(source: artaphot.ch)

It's ~1.5cm shorter and a lot lighter (265g/285g vs 420g) too, the focus ring isn't as smooth as on the MC-X & MD-I version though.
Overall, the 4-lens f/2.8 probably has the edge among Minolta's 135s but the 5-lens f/3.5 seems to be the best compact option.
If f/3.5 isn't fast enough, the MD100/2.5 (MD-III: 310g) may be a compact alternative.

I had the 4-lens 135/2.8 but I didn't like the weight. I'm much happier with the MD-II 85/2 and the MD-II/III 135/3.5.


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Main thing those test show is that all the Minolta MD 135s are very good lenses. You'd have to really pixel peep to notice a difference.


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Oly camera?


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
woodrim wrote:
Oly camera?


are you asking me or Boris_Akunin?
if it's me, then it's Oly E-M5
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 Next
Page 1 of 2