Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

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


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













PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixland wrote:
Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.


yeah, i also like this lens


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where are my sunglasses??!


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
Where are my sunglasses??!


?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very contrasty and sharp - nearly too much for my eyes!


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
Very contrasty and sharp - nearly too much for my eyes!


Smile


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixland wrote:
Woww ... what a Rokkor rendering Smile
Thanks for sharing.

+1


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.





PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

new samples using E-M5









PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very, very good rendering.

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


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oly camera?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Oly camera?


are you asking me or Boris_Akunin?
if it's me, then it's Oly E-M5