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

Does the Minolta MC 35mm f1.8HH lens worth buying?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:21 am    Post subject: Does the Minolta MC 35mm f1.8HH lens worth buying? Reply with quote

Hello everyone here, I'm new to this forum and found that it's the place I'm looking for.
My cameras include minolta X-700 and srt101, and I'd like to buy a 35mm focal length prime lens. There are 5 lens of this focal, the MC/MD f1.8 version and the MC/MD f2.8 version, the shift CA version I would not consider to buy.
The MC/MD f1.8 version is a highly recommended lens, but the price is generally over $200, and the f2.8 version is quite cheap and affordable. Is there any observable difference between them, or does the f1.8 ones worth that much?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might have already know this site http://www.rokkorfiles.com/35mm%20Page%201.htm .

If you don't need the speed/DOF, get the F2.8 version. However, the F1.8 version have pleasant bokeh which you cannot find in the F2.8 version http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=53279 .


PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks very much! It's very helpful.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consult artaphot.ch . The best site for Rokkors performance comparisons.
The MD W 35 2.8 is a very good lens indeed ( 5 elements version). I can confirm this.
The 1.8 makes sense if you need that speed.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case you need the preliminary result from artaphot.ch
http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/340-sony-a7-and-zm-2-8-35mm-mc-1-8-35mm-md-2-8-35mm-md-3-5-35-70mm


PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both MC W.Rokkor HH 35/1.8 and MD W.Rokkor 35/2.8 5/5 are very good lenses.The HH advantage however is not only speed,but first of all crispnness and contrasty rendering when stopped down to f8-11.The MD 35/2.8 doesn't show those.

MC W.Rokkor HH 35/1.8 + Sony A7 at f11

http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1413734945.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1414257629.SEQ.1.jpg

MD W.Rokkor 35/2.8 + Sony A7 at f 8
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1420042256.SEQ.1.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1420994956.SEQ.4.jpg


PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there an equivalent in Olympus or Canon to the Rokkor?

I alreaady own the Nikon 28mm 2.8 and the Rokkor 50mm 1.4 so I'd like to try other brands, if they are as good.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the new comparison of Minolta 35mm F1.8 Rokkor-HH versus 35mm F2.8 Rokkor-HG versus New-MD



PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Here is the new comparison of Minolta 35mm F1.8 Rokkor-HH versus 35mm F2.8 Rokkor-HG versus New-MD


For this scene, roughly a draw between F1.8s. MD-III was a bit sharper in the extreme corner, but lost on wide open contrast.
Coma and CA correction is where MD-III clearly pulls ahead.

TBH if Rokkor wasn't as heavy as it is, I would've preferred it just because of the sweet sweet H&V focusing action.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use the md 35 2,8 for street pics.
Forget the CA, unsharp images, low contrast, flare.
IT's a very good lens for diary use