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

rokkor 45/2. Underrated? So much!!!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject: rokkor 45/2. Underrated? So much!!! Reply with quote

I have seen some pics taken with nex 3 and 4 minolta's lenses.

1- 45/2
2- 35/1,8
3-35/2,8 mc
4-35/,2,8 md.

In all the casus were used f/4 to f/8.

The pics where the 45/2 was used at f/8 win over the rest (yes) the 35/1,8 included.

Wanderful and cheap lens!!!!!

Anything is wrong? Don't understad very well, can't beleave this.

Any experience?

Rino


PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this lens: it's small, sharp, and the focal length is not very common. Here's the size comparison with Canon FD 50/1.4 and Hexanon AR 40/1.8 on their respective m4/3 adapters. I think it also shows a downside of this lens: the size advantage over 1.4 lens is not that great, while 1 stop difference is quite significant.



IQ is quite good, certainly good enough for me. I don't think however, that it stands out compared to other good normals. I'll keep it, however, because it's the only 45mm lens that I have.





PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's tiny, good and cheap.

#1 at f2.0


#2 at f2.0


Last edited by hoanpham on Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta made good lenses shame how people not respect most of them.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's the best cheap pancake available. I have Rokkor 2/45, Hexanon 1.8/40, Pentacon 2.4/50 and had Yashica ML 2/50, they are all the same size - tiny.

The Yashica is perhaps the sharpest but the Rokkor is the one I liked most, very smooth rendering and bokeh, rich colours, sharp even wide open. It's not the greatest technically but the character is very attractive.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta made really great lenses.

The Minolta MD 50/2 is also really great and as underrated as the 45/2. For my taste the 50/2 is optically the best manual ~50mm lens I've ever had (and I had many of them, some of them were 20 times more expensive).


PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me the only real drawback with the 45 is that it doesn't focus as close as the Minolta 50's. Otherwise, a wonderful lens.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Almost all 50/55/58 mm rokkor lenses seem to have better rendering than the 2/45. Or at least the same at f/5,8-8.
Different with 35 mm lenses? Is the 45 lens better fhan the mc and md 35's?
From that fact the 45 shoul be more and better watched like a moderate wide angle than a normal lenses.
A good partner to the 100/2,5 rokkor?

Rino


PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The way Minoltas are priced, getting them all shouldn't be such a problem.

The cult lenses excepted of course.
Those are pricey relatively speaking.

Minoltas are my favorites with the NEX7.
Prefer them over my Leitz tbh


PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
Almost all 50/55/58 mm rokkor lenses seem to have better rendering than the 2/45. Or at least the same at f/5,8-8.
...
From that fact the 45 shoul be more and better watched like a moderate wide angle than a normal lenses.


How can it be a wide angle if most people today are using it on crop cameras?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The term wide angle is not absolute, but relative to the focal lengh taken like " normal ". If you read adecuately thr tread, can see that the 50/55/58 are taken as normal lenses.
The little size of your sensor, isn't a lens problem, is yours.
Inside this reference, the 45 mm can be considered like a moderate wide angle lens, not matter how little your senzor can be
Anyways, can you do any serious aport?


Last edited by estudleon on Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've wanted a 40ish lens for a while now, just sunk some cash on a 45mm in which I will adapt to take a pentax K-mount.

Weeeee Razz


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
The term wide angle is not absolute, but relative to the focal lengh taken like " normal ". If you read adecuately thr tread, can see that the 50/55/58 are taken as normal lenses.
...
Inside this reference, the 45 mm can be considered like a moderate wide angle lens, not matter how little your senzor can be
...


I simply don't think that re-defining well established terminology has any justification here: terms "normal", "wide", and "tele" has long been related to the FOV, and used that way they have photographic meaning, while your redefinitions don't.

For example on APS-C 35mm is a normal, while 45mm is a short tele, I don't think there is any basis for comparison of these lenses in APS-C context as the usage is too different. On m4/3 both will be short teles and the basis for comparison reappears, but it's completely different to such basis on Minolta film camera, where 35-45mm is wide-normal to normal.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree respect the little sensors. I hope that the ff will come more accesible. The results seem to not let comparison. For example the pics i watched taken using a canon ff are stunning. And with almost any kind of lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this small Minolta lens too...
I also tend to use Rokkor with Sony cameras (NEX-3). I believe the sony's sensor and minolta signature in lenses work very well together Smile

I have rokkors 35 f/1.8 and 45 f/2 and guess what: - the little rokkor 45mm f/2 IS MY FRONT CAP of NEX camera!!! Very Happy

Pros:
a) fantastic size in camera;
b) not so long with adapter , Thus can be used with the Nex's flash;
c) really sharp lens.

cons:
d) to me the only downsize is: focus ring is small (at least compared with 1.8 version) and to sometimes with low light and "fast actions" it is hard to spot the focus... The rokkor 35mm f/1.8 has a much longer focusing ring so (to me) work better to focus precisely.

A little GEM indeed.


Regards


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A FRONT CAP???? OHH......

If you take an accidental pic it should be a good one Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
A FRONT CAP???? OHH......

If you take an accidental pic it should be a good one Very Happy


So TRUE, that I also forgot to include this lens in my profile signature!!! Laughing Laughing

(Surely was on camera and not among the others lenses when start inventoring...)