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 W-ROKKOR-QE 1:4 35MM
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:41 am    Post subject: MINOLTA W-ROKKOR-QE 1:4 35MM Reply with quote

Had a very good day and won another lens. I really don't know the IQ of this lens, but I really wanted this early 60's Minolta lens.
Looks a little worn, but I really like the early black and chrome lenses.
I really don't even know the value of this one, but my winning bid was under $10 USD so I think I did okay. These are listing photos. So I really don't know the real condition till I get it. Anyone have one, or shoot with one?





PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, that is a lens from before my first SR1!
More a collectors item then a lens for practical day to day use may be, but for that price you can take the risk!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had one, since sold, but I used it (on film of course) and it's OK, the more sophisticated designs offered concurrently, like the 35/2.8 are of course higher in performance, I have no idea how that translates to digital, however.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
Wow, that is a lens from before my first SR1!
More a collectors item then a lens for practical day to day use may be, but for that price you can take the risk!


Thought this would be fun to own. Your right at the price I just couldn't pass it by. Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seele wrote:
I had one, since sold, but I used it (on film of course) and it's OK, the more sophisticated designs offered concurrently, like the 35/2.8 are of course higher in performance, I have no idea how that translates to digital, however.


Thank You, I will run tests when I get the lens and post them on here.
I have the MC W Rokkor HG 35 2.8 also, so I can run a few test to see how they match up at different f stops.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Walter,

With very few exceptions, Minolta-built lenses are generally very high in performance, and more importantly to me, having a consistency in the "look" of the images they produce, if from the same generation. While this lens was made until the advent of the SRT series, it could be an exception though.

To me, consistency across the focal lengths is important: when I shoot a series of pictures (on reversal) using several lenses, I want them to have the same look. In this particular aspect, Minolta lenses excel. I have three small collections of Minolta lenses for SLR cameras, early pre-MC, early MC, and late post-Rokkor, to play it absolutely safe I never mix them. That said, different people have different priorities, and in this respect Minolta works very well for me.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what you mean Seele and for this reason, one of my small camera bags I carry around is dedicated to carrying my set of Meyers - Oreston 1.8/50, Primagon 4.5/35, Lydith 3.5/30, Primotar 3.5/135 and Orestegor 4/200.

I know very little about Minolta lenses, I did own a Minolta 7000Af in the 90s and loved it, I had the 1.8/50 for it which was superb, the 'beer can' 70-210 which is rightly sought after, also superb and a Sigma (branded Carl Zeiss) 2.8/24 that was also superb. Wish I still had all three!

I know the Minolta AF mount is different to the earlier ones and is the same as the Sony AF mount but I know nothing of the earlier lenses.

So let me see, am I right in saying the Minolta mount pre-AF was always the same and all the MC and MD lenses have the same mount?

What other camera systems can these Minolta lenses be adapted to?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow what a wonderful look Smile
It will be an excellent performer i predict.
I have the 1.4/58 from the same finish and it is outstanding.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I know the Minolta AF mount is different to the earlier ones and is the same as the Sony AF mount but I know nothing of the earlier lenses.

So let me see, am I right in saying the Minolta mount pre-AF was always the same and all the MC and MD lenses have the same mount?

What other camera systems can these Minolta lenses be adapted to?


To be technically correct, the manual focus Minolta mount is the SR mount, with coupling for TTL metering it is MC, and with extra coupling for setting the aperture with the camera body it is MD, but the physical mount remains the same SR.

While compatibility has been excellent, MD variants of the lenses would have problems working with the earliest SR bodies as the MD coupler would hit the bulging nameplate.

I have no idea what other cameras these lenses would fit, but in the earlier days at least, Minolta actually made three adapters for other lenses to fit their cameras, namely, Exakta, Nikon, and M42.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of the old series I only have the Auto Rokkor PF 55mm 2.0. And I used it sofar exclusively on the SR1s it came with.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The MD lenses are fairly common in the UK but I havent seen many of the older ones.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
Of the old series I only have the Auto Rokkor PF 55mm 2.0. And I used it sofar exclusively on the SR1s it came with.


I have never seen Auto Rokkor PF 55mm F2.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
Of the old series I only have the Auto Rokkor PF 55mm 2.0. And I used it sofar exclusively on the SR1s it came with.


That's probably going to be one I'll buy soon. It would make a nice little kit
with my QE 35 f4, and my Rokkor TC 135 f4.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seele wrote:
Walter,

With very few exceptions, Minolta-built lenses are generally very high in performance, and more importantly to me, having a consistency in the "look" of the images they produce, if from the same generation. While this lens was made until the advent of the SRT series, it could be an exception though.

To me, consistency across the focal lengths is important: when I shoot a series of pictures (on reversal) using several lenses, I want them to have the same look. In this particular aspect, Minolta lenses excel. I have three small collections of Minolta lenses for SLR cameras, early pre-MC, early MC, and late post-Rokkor, to play it absolutely safe I never mix them. That said, different people have different priorities, and in this respect Minolta works very well for me.


Thank You, My collection seems to be going the same way. I started out with the MD series lenses, then I started adding MC lenses, and now I'm adding the early SR lenses.
So I will wind up with 3 sets.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

std wrote:
Wow what a wonderful look Smile
It will be an excellent performer i predict.
I have the 1.4/58 from the same finish and it is outstanding.


Thank you, That is a lens that is very high on my to buy list. I've came very close to winning the 1.4 58 twice , and lost by one bid. Sad


PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got it today. It has a 55mm filtering so it's the first version not the second. Well worn like the photo shows but the optics are really nice.
Mechanically no problems.Body needs a good cleaning.
I will try to take photos of the lens tomorrow, but actual testing will probably be several days.
I don't think Minolta actually used the word preset with this lens, instead they called it a stopdown lever.
It has a very deep recessed front element, as in 3/4 of the lens deep. Shocked
It is also quite a bit shorter then the later 35's.
I tried one quick shot on my computer desk. I didn't use a hood. the lens I photographed is under my brass reproduction table lamp. The one with the green shade. No PP at all. I wouldn't call this a real shot, but to me I think the lens handeled the light well.
Please tell me your opinions.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay Guys, and Gals I need big time help. The first shot below is what I would expect Bokeh wise. No pp or color adjustment. Don't know the exact time these were shot, but around 5:45 PM. Sun is coming over my right shoulder. Both shots are wide open.

The first shot I used the grass and other flowers to produce the Bokeh I wanted.
Second shot I changed the angle and shot higher. There are 2 sheds inline from where I shot.I did miss focus slightly.
But I still wouldn't expect this. Shocked Shocked
C/C welcome.Any comments are welcome.



The Problem Shot.



PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your focus is off slightly on the trouble picture-what was the aperture?
Looks to me like if you had focussed like the first image, and increased shutter speed to say 1/500 sec,( at that aperture) for both images it would have helped. I am just commenting from the information you've been nice enough to provide.
Looks like a beautiful lens congrats.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank You.
Both shots are with a Canon EOS 10D with MD EOS adapter. Both are shot in AV mode, camera supplied the Exposure I didn't. Embarassed

Shot 1 ISO 400 at f4 Wide Open, 1/180s.
Shot 2 ISO 400 at f4 Wide Open, 1/125s.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never used an EOS. Although camera provides the exposure and automates everything-my experience has been that it produces improved results if I manually control the shutter speed depending on the day,aperture and lens used etc. I get good results by checking the image out in the camera display and making adjustments to the shutter speed-or aperture manually of course.
I have learnt from trial and error.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

walter g wrote:
It would make a nice little kit
with my QE 35 f4, and my Rokkor TC 135 f4.


Forgot to mention. From the TC135 f4 I still have and use - it was my first extra lens - the bellows version. A very nice lens!


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
walter g wrote:
It would make a nice little kit
with my QE 35 f4, and my Rokkor TC 135 f4.


Forgot to mention. From the TC135 f4 I still have and use - it was my first extra lens - the bellows version. A very nice lens!


Thank You. I really like mine also.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kathmandu wrote:
I have never used an EOS. Although camera provides the exposure and automates everything-my experience has been that it produces improved results if I manually control the shutter speed depending on the day,aperture and lens used etc. I get good results by checking the image out in the camera display and making adjustments to the shutter speed-or aperture manually of course.
I have learnt from trial and error.


Thank You. You're a 100% right.I need to learn alll the settings on this camera instead of using just a few.My first DSLR so I'm still learning what button does what.I guees I need too get new glasses for reading, and start using TV mode=Shutter priority, or M mode, which I believe on this camera is full manual mode.

The bad thing is there is no directions on how to shoot a manual lens on this camera in the manual.

So for now, until I can get new glasses. This is in AV mode, but I adjusted the exposure. This is at f8 with no PP.
Please C/C All Comments Are Welcome.

ISO 400
f8
1/20ths
Underexposed 1 Stop



PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seele wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I know the Minolta AF mount is different to the earlier ones and is the same as the Sony AF mount but I know nothing of the earlier lenses.

So let me see, am I right in saying the Minolta mount pre-AF was always the same and all the MC and MD lenses have the same mount?

What other camera systems can these Minolta lenses be adapted to?


To be technically correct, the manual focus Minolta mount is the SR mount, with coupling for TTL metering it is MC, and with extra coupling for setting the aperture with the camera body it is MD, but the physical mount remains the same SR.

While compatibility has been excellent, MD variants of the lenses would have problems working with the earliest SR bodies as the MD coupler would hit the bulging nameplate.

I have no idea what other cameras these lenses would fit, but in the earlier days at least, Minolta actually made three adapters for other lenses to fit their cameras, namely, Exakta, Nikon, and M42.



Just few quick compatibility question! Might be simple and obvious! But I am new to DSLR

Will this lens work on one of the latest models say sony A33 with MD to A- mount adaptor.
Since most MD to A mount adaptors don't have electrical contacts, will a pre-MC , MC or MD lens make any difference?

thanks in advance


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can use any of them but,the problem about using any pre Mc,. Mc, or MD lenses on an Alpha body is registration distance. They will only work as macro lenses, or you will need to use an adapter with glass, which degrades the image.