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

MC Rokkor 55/1,8 Minolta SR-7
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 9:17 pm    Post subject: MC Rokkor 55/1,8 Minolta SR-7 Reply with quote
I have not pics of the lens, but it came with the Minolta SR-7

Three images taken with it.

Good lens.



#1


#2




#3




All of them was taken at F/2,8.

Not PP at all. With it they should be better, but you can see how does the lens job at every days use.

You have the color rendering, close focus and little details.


PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like Rokkors, I have a bunch of them around the 50mm range - except this one - and they really are very good, with a distinctive style of colour rendering. What's not to like ? Like 1 small


PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are really good lenses.

To some users the MC win over the MD in color and rendering.

I have to say that the MD 24/2,8 have better coating (so best CA) than the MC version.

Here, burned highlights at the second and longitudinal CA in the third pics are showed by the lens.

If this lens would have been made in MD I version, it should be a lens to use with today standarts.

But almost all the MC are good lenses, of course.


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2016 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
They are really good lenses.

To some users the MC win over the MD in color and rendering.

I have to say that the MD 24/2,8 have better coating (so best CA) than the MC version.

Here, burned highlights at the second and longitudinal CA in the third pics are showed by the lens.

If this lens would have been made in MD I version, it should be a lens to use with today standarts.

But almost all the MC are good lenses, of course.


I think the main consideration is the better bokeh from the under-corrected spherical aberration, as well as the stronger contrast due to (usually) less lens elements. I have noticed that with the 50's ( 50,55,58 ) that the MC versions are particularly sharp in the centre from wide open with LaCA generally very well controlled but the edges and corners never really catch up to a quality level until F5.6 - F11. I only have a MC-II 55mm F1.7 and MC-I 58mm F1.4 whereas I believe the 50mm's generally have better edge to edge sharpness. In the MC-II and MD series, SA was corrected harder resulting in better edge-to-edge sharpness but certainly at F1.4 and F2, the MC-II 58mm is worse than its MC-I predecessor in contrast and glow.

The MC-I 58mm F1.4 actually has the best edge performance at F1.4 and F2 it seems, perhaps indicating some focus shift or change in field curvature when stopped down further. The MC-II is significantly improved in the edge/corner performance (despite the same optical configuration), along with other common lenses also released at the same time due to Minolta acquiring a computer to aid in optimisation. It is similar to the MD 50 1.4 which is actually the same as the MC 58 1.2.

Surprisingly, a lot of the telephoto MC and AR lenses are much better than the early MD counterparts despite seemingly better optical configuration and coatings. For example I have a Auto-Tele PG 135mm F2.8 (6/5) and an MC Tele-Rokkor QD 135mm F3.5 (4/4). I'd say the former, with more glass and earlier coatings still performs better, although that is a testament to the quality achieved in a 4 element design! The 135/2.8 MC's have a bad reputation in comparison.

As for colour, I am not sure but from Minolta's own advertising, they claim the MC lenses are the world's first series to have consistent colour transmission, reducing or eliminating the requirement of colour-balance correction filters on the lens. Personally I am not sure how big a deal that was in the day, but I have seen threaded colour filters sold in boxes of over 20 for seemingly such a purpose, dating before 1960. I doubt many professionals gave much thought to it in the day...

Last edited by Teemō on Wed May 18, 2016 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2016 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had for a long time the Mc II 1,2/58. It was a very good lens, but produced burned highlights and some CA till F/11.
Minolta never made MD 58 mm lens.

The 55/1,8 was a Planar design, so the contrast was less than the aftermade 50's Mc and MD.

Md I almost were the same fórmula than the last Mc lenses. Little changes. Better coating = less CA, more contrast

Md 2,8/135 mm 4/4 have good reputación, I have one, but strong CA till F/9,5.


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2016 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

I had for a long time the Mc II 1,2/58. It was a very good lens, but produced burned highlights and some CA till F/11.


What do you mean by burned highlights? You mention them in the second photo but it isn't clear to me since that looks like simple overexposure. Do you mean the ability of the lens to transmit details in areas of strong highlights/contrasts without being overcome by glare?

papasito wrote:

Minolta never made MD 58 mm lens.


That's correct, I was confused. I have amended my post.

papasito wrote:

Md 2,8/135 mm 4/4 have good reputación, I have one, but strong CA till F/9,5.


It is in my opinion, not as preferable as the earlier lens, which unfortunately produces a slightly yellow cast due to the lanthanum element, but it seems to have less CA and less glow - very comparable to the 4/4 QD 135mm F3.5.
http://www.artaphot.ch/images/Technik/NEX/NEX-5N_and_135mm_Lenses/Minolta_135mm_f28_Auto_Rokkor_1965.jpg
http://www.artaphot.ch/images/Technik/NEX/NEX-5N_and_135mm_Lenses/Minolta_135mm_f28_MD-I_1977.jpg

It is possible that your lens is de-centred as I don't think the CA should be "strong".


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will tell you what I understand with "burned high lights"

In the pic N° 2. There is a leaf in our left side of the image.

It's overexpose but that exposition is needed by all the rest of the pic to has minimal detail in the shadow zone.

Well, with my summicron R 2/50 (as with almost all the newer lenses, I guess) that leaf is not overexposed.

The minolta has very low resistance to high lights. With them, almost all details there are loose.

I call that burned high lights

Perhaps I fell in guilty writting borned by burned. Excuse me, please.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah I can't say I've ever noticed it and I'm not sure how it could be explained optically, but these old lenses do glare and ghost on the highlights, quite bad at times.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1