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 MC/MD 24/2,8 glass
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:59 am    Post subject: minolta MC/MD 24/2,8 glass Reply with quote
The minolta design 2,8/24 lens from 1973 to 1981 was made in coperation with leica, like we all know.

And the same lens was name elmarit R in leica mount.

Both lenses had schott glass?

Only elmarit had schott and rokkor hoya or minolta glass?

Both hoya/minolta glass?

Anybody knows that?


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have an answer to this question. But it did make me wonder why you want to know, and how about the Minolta/Leica zooms like the 3.5/35-70 and 4.5/75-200, both were sold as Leica lenses as well.....

Would be logical if the glasses used all came out of one factory though....


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The difference about the cost of the two brands call my attention.

I purchased the minolta 24 at 85 bucks, and the elmarit was at $ 300!!!

Obviously leica is expensive. But so much difference if both are the same, or almost, lens....hum.....

So i though that different glass should be one of the reasons of that diverse cost.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As far as I know was the glass made in Japan and the elmarit mount, like engraved, in Germany....
Klaus


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well. I had read in shutterbug of the 80's (hum.....1988 i guess) a note to minolta executive. He said that leica told minolta that if they wanted to produce the lens in colaboration, minolta must used schott block of glass.

That theme always interest to me. Schott glass at minolta prices?

If you look at imagesthe takken with rokkor 24, the palette of colours is different to the existent in the others primes rokkor.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well.... it's not uncommon for people to pay for a certain name on a product.... it's quite normal. There is a market for this kind of luxury products , where the name ON the item is far more expensive than the actual price/value of the product itself.

I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Well.... it's not uncommon for people to pay for a certain name on a product.... it's quite normal. There is a market for this kind of luxury products , where the name ON the item is far more expensive than the actual price/value of the product itself.

I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


Anyone who has paid big money for a luxury item will argue all day that their product is better, and anyone who buys one at a bargain price will support them. Only empirical testing can spot what differences there are in quality - if any. And if there is no discernible difference, then it will come down to subjective matters - feelings, impressions, a certain something ...or whatever. Once a person has bought into a myth/legend/reputation they will always fight to preserve it.
Back to the matter of glass, what precisely is the Schott glass that is referred to here?


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Well.... it's not uncommon for people to pay for a certain name on a product.... it's quite normal. There is a market for this kind of luxury products , where the name ON the item is far more expensive than the actual price/value of the product itself.

I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


Anyone who has paid big money for a luxury item will argue all day that their product is better, and anyone who buys one at a bargain price will support them. Only empirical testing can spot what differences there are in quality - if any. And if there is no discernible difference, then it will come down to subjective matters - feelings, impressions, a certain something ...or whatever. Once a person has bought into a myth/legend/reputation they will always fight to preserve it.
Back to the matter of glass, what precisely is the Schott glass that is referred to here?



First, sometimes i bought expensive lenses and they didn't had response in the hoped way. Which ones?
Well, 2,8/180 sonnar m42, 1,2/55 zuiko, 2,8/90 elmarit M first version 1959, etc.

In others cases the purchase was OK, like with 3,4/180 apo telyt, summilux 1,4/50 R , 35/1,4 asph summilux M, etc.

The general rule here to me is you have what you pay for, with exceptions.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read somewhere that Leica had very strict quality control for Minolta produced lenses. A large part of the 16mm and 24mm lenses from minolta were rejected...


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sammo wrote:
I read somewhere that Leica had very strict quality control for Minolta produced lenses. A large part of the 16mm and 24mm lenses from minolta were rejected...


..........and sold with Minolta brand?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DR.JUAN wrote:
The difference about the cost of the two brands call my attention.

I purchased the minolta 24 at 85 bucks, and the elmarit was at $ 300!!!

Obviously leica is expensive. But so much difference if both are the same, or almost, lens....hum.....

So i though that different glass should be one of the reasons of that diverse cost.

If you held both in your hands you would see where the cost difference comes from, the optics may be the same, but the Leica is a more solidly built lens than the Minolta, the filter ring rotates on the Minolta, not so with the Leica.
Oddly, my 24 is made in Germany, while my 35-70/3.5 is made in Japan.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


I'm not really surprised that TrueLoveOne has never seen a Leica picture "that looks extremely better than any other picture". Neither have I, and I've owned Leica lenses for over half a century now. The most expensive lenses from the leading makers have never produced "extremely better" results than their rivals, although they have regularly provided images that are far from identical with each other. The differences between top class lenses have often been subtly different. "Better" is sometimes more of a perception than a demonstrable, single, aspect. Those differences are actually harder to perceive today with digital imaging systems than they were with film, particularly with colour reversal emulsions like Kodachrome.

Film users even thirty years ago could detect the particular natures of "families" of lenses more easily then we can today. Be absolutely certain that if you exposed part of a roll of Kodachrome in a Nikon and then the other part in a Leica/Canon/Pentax/etc you could indeed clearly recognise that the images were far from identical. Some were indeed "better" than others, although quantifying "better" was often hard to do. Going back to the lenses made a quarter century before that, the differences were even more clearly seen. On film, with experience you could even pick out the photos taken with certain individual lenses. Nikon lenses behaved differently to Leica lenses, Canon lenses from Pentax ones and so on. Having spent decades in the photo-retail business during the Age of Colour Slide Film I was in the happy position of being able to make such comparisons and speak from experience. Today, those differences are harder to make out.

This is partly because the refinement in lens designing has led to something of a harmonisation of optical characteristics and partrly because digital photography's systems tend to influence the way images eventually appear to us. Cameras and processing software all affect both raw and JPEG files diferently, and even when using a number of makes of lens on one body (e.g. Nex) the outcomes are sometimes more a reflection on the camera than on the lens. In consequence they're hard to interpret comparatively.

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it's a mistake to assume that the most expensive lenses from any maker are "overpriced luxury goods". The most complex and sophisticated design have always been very, very costly with other less expensive alternatives being surprisingly close in their overall image quality. Forty years ago, I was pretty sure I could pick out the Kodachrome slides taken with a 50mm Summicron from those taken with a 50mm Nikkor - but I can't do it today on my Lumix Wink .


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote:
The difference about the cost of the two brands call my attention.

I purchased the minolta 24 at 85 bucks, and the elmarit was at $ 300!!!

Obviously leica is expensive. But so much difference if both are the same, or almost, lens....hum.....

So i though that different glass should be one of the reasons of that diverse cost.

If you held both in your hands you would see where the cost difference comes from, the optics may be the same, but the Leica is a more solidly built lens than the Minolta, the filter ring rotates on the Minolta, not so with the Leica.
Oddly, my 24 is made in Germany, while my 35-70/3.5 is made in Japan.


You are right.

My new 24lens is minolta. Sold my nikkor 24/2,8.

I won with the change.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
TrueLoveOne wrote:
I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


I'm not really surprised that TrueLoveOne has never seen a Leica picture "that looks extremely better than any other picture". Neither have I, and I've owned Leica lenses for over half a century now. The most expensive lenses from the leading makers have never produced "extremely better" results than their rivals, although they have regularly provided images that are far from identical with each other. The differences between top class lenses have often been subtly different. "Better" is sometimes more of a perception than a demonstrable, single, aspect. Those differences are actually harder to perceive today with digital imaging systems than they were with film, particularly with colour reversal emulsions like Kodachrome.

Film users even thirty years ago could detect the particular natures of "families" of lenses more easily then we can today. Be absolutely certain that if you exposed part of a roll of Kodachrome in a Nikon and then the other part in a Leica/Canon/Pentax/etc you could indeed clearly recognise that the images were far from identical. Some were indeed "better" than others, although quantifying "better" was often hard to do. Going back to the lenses made a quarter century before that, the differences were even more clearly seen. On film, with experience you could even pick out the photos taken with certain individual lenses.
Nikon lenses behaved differently to Leica lenses, Canon lenses from Pentax ones and so on. Having spent decades in the photo-retail business during the Age of Colour Slide Film I was in the happy position of being able to make such comparisons and speak from experience. Today, those differences are harder to make out.

This is partly because the refinement in lens designing has led to something of a harmonisation of optical characteristics and partrly because digital photography's systems tend to influence the way images eventually appear to us. Cameras and processing software all affect both raw and JPEG files diferently, and even when using a number of makes of lens on one body (e.g. Nex) the outcomes are sometimes more a reflection on the camera than on the lens. In consequence they're hard to interpret comparatively.

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it's a mistake to assume that the most expensive lenses from any maker are "overpriced luxury goods". The most complex and sophisticated design have always been very, very costly with other less expensive alternatives being surprisingly close in their overall image quality. Forty years ago, I was pretty sure I could pick out the Kodachrome slides taken with a 50mm Summicron from those taken with a 50mm Nikkor - but I can't do it today on my Lumix Wink .



The standar life is the north to follow by the industries and, by the consumers.

Inside that, it's difficilt to odentify


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
TrueLoveOne wrote:
I have never used Leica products, so i do not want to say it's merely a name you pay, but to be honest: i have always thought of it that way.... overpriced luxury goods. I have never seen a picture made with a Leica that looks extremely better than any other picture, nor can i see if a picture was specifically made with Leica equipment, although some people want you to believe that it can be seen.....


I'm not really surprised that TrueLoveOne has never seen a Leica picture "that looks extremely better than any other picture". Neither have I, and I've owned Leica lenses for over half a century now. The most expensive lenses from the leading makers have never produced "extremely better" results than their rivals, although they have regularly provided images that are far from identical with each other. The differences between top class lenses have often been subtly different. "Better" is sometimes more of a perception than a demonstrable, single, aspect. Those differences are actually harder to perceive today with digital imaging systems than they were with film, particularly with colour reversal emulsions like Kodachrome.

Film users even thirty years ago could detect the particular natures of "families" of lenses more easily then we can today. Be absolutely certain that if you exposed part of a roll of Kodachrome in a Nikon and then the other part in a Leica/Canon/Pentax/etc you could indeed clearly recognise that the images were far from identical. Some were indeed "better" than others, although quantifying "better" was often hard to do. Going back to the lenses made a quarter century before that, the differences were even more clearly seen. On film, with experience you could even pick out the photos taken with certain individual lenses.
Nikon lenses behaved differently to Leica lenses, Canon lenses from Pentax ones and so on. Having spent decades in the photo-retail business during the Age of Colour Slide Film I was in the happy position of being able to make such comparisons and speak from experience. Today, those differences are harder to make out.

This is partly because the refinement in lens designing has led to something of a harmonisation of optical characteristics and partrly because digital photography's systems tend to influence the way images eventually appear to us. Cameras and processing software all affect both raw and JPEG files diferently, and even when using a number of makes of lens on one body (e.g. Nex) the outcomes are sometimes more a reflection on the camera than on the lens. In consequence they're hard to interpret comparatively.

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it's a mistake to assume that the most expensive lenses from any maker are "overpriced luxury goods". The most complex and sophisticated design have always been very, very costly with other less expensive alternatives being surprisingly close in their overall image quality. Forty years ago, I was pretty sure I could pick out the Kodachrome slides taken with a 50mm Summicron from those taken with a 50mm Nikkor - but I can't do it today on my Lumix Wink .



The standar life is the north to follow by the industries and, by the consumers.

Inside that, it's difficilt to identify the different subject (persons, cars, tvs, lenses, etc)

Today the contrast of the lens is seen like the glory of the industry. Old leica m lenses with their medium contrast and high resolution power are not surpassed.

Like in "animal farmer", not all the animals were so equals than others.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1