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

Minolta MD W.Rokkor f/1.8 35mm
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:24 am    Post subject: Minolta MD W.Rokkor f/1.8 35mm Reply with quote

A lens with a bit of a mixed reputation from what i have read so far. Never had nor used one before, received it yesterday and decided to put up some quick wide-open shots before work starts again!
All of these are straight jpg shots from the Sony A3000, no PP whatsoever and all at f/1.8.
Nailing focus is hard with this one, so far i like what i see, more to come!

1.


2.


3.


4.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never used the lens on digital sofar.
Purchased mine in the seventies, still with the knurled focusring.

Your first results are not bad!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This lens is a mistery to me.

I see goods images taken with it, but some reports aren't so good.

Some people say that from F/5,6 the pictures taken with the 1,8 and the 2,8 are similar.

With the 1,8 you have the chance to take the picture wide open, so you can have one image that with the 2,8 you can't. Of course, in theory. The good high ISO rendering of newer digital cameras seems to say not true the 1,8 advantage.

Can I ask what do you think about that, seen the 1,8 rendering?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
The good high ISO rendering of newer digital cameras seems to say not true the 1,8 advantage.

Can I ask what do you think about that, seen the 1,8 rendering?


f/1.8 gives a smaller depth of field than f/2.8, so it's always an advantage if you like that kind of photography.

I only have this lens since one day, just made some quick shots with it. All pics above are wide open, at f/1.8, i like what i see, what do you think after reading all those reports?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good so far, better take more pictures for me to really tell.... :0)


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good to me, I've had 2 MC HH 35/1.8's, and I'm finding it hard to love the rendering, I don't know what it is, I need to glu it to the camera for a few days and get used to it, and find its sweet spot.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMHO very good lens
Here are some shots with it , all taken with nex-3

Untitled by Abhishek Ray, on Flickr

Christmas 2014 by Abhishek Ray, on Flickr

Christmas 2014 by Abhishek Ray, on Flickr

Christmas 2014 by Abhishek Ray, on Flickr

Like son by Abhishek Ray, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is not to like here.
Go ahead and use it more - good results
OH Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
What is not to like here.
Go ahead and use it more - good results
OH Very Happy


I agree. It's a Rokkor length I'm missing, but this one has gone on my list.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guys, please try and clarify which version you are talking about. There are at least two optically different versions and 5 different barrel designs*.
The last two versions (MD-II: MD W.Rokkor; MD-III: "plain MD") are just over half the weight of the first three versions.

I've got the MC-X version of the W.Rokkor-HH but I'd rather have the MD-II Version (would anyone like to swap?)

*See Dennis Lohmann's list


PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks fine to me overall.


Boris_Akunin wrote:
Guys, please try and clarify which version you are talking about. There are at least two optically different versions and 5 different barrel designs*.
The last two versions (MD-II: MD W.Rokkor; MD-III: "plain MD") are just over half the weight of the first three versions.

I've got the MC-X version of the W.Rokkor-HH but I'd rather have the MD-II Version (would anyone like to swap?)

*See Dennis Lohmann's list


+1


PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All 5 verions are 8/6 designs, but completely different, hence the difference in weight.

Mine is the MD-II. Some say it is better, some say they all perform equally with just really minor differences.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both.. very minor differences. Surprisingly similar. Except weight.. so may swell go for late versions.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more review - Minolta MD 35mm f1.8 - it is late MD (MD III), not a Rokkor


PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very light and compact, an excellent partner for what I do with it. "Standard" focal length with A6000.

The rubber band has gone loose though. Any advice how to fix this?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
All 5 verions are 8/6 designs, but completely different, hence the difference in weight.
Mine is the MD-II. Some say it is better, some say they all perform equally with just really minor differences.

lukias wrote:
I have both.. very minor differences. Surprisingly similar. Except weight.. so may swell go for late versions.


I have several copies of both optical constrictions as well, and i can confirm that they perform nearly identical.

The later design has five (out of eight) lenses made of special glass. One is made out of the classical SF6 (nD 1.80, dispersion 25.2), four others are of more sophisticated high refractive / low dispersive glass (nD 1.75 ... 1.79, and dispersion between 47.7 and 50.1, possibly in-house glass).

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Steve,
Always informative in a professional way. Schuss


PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antoine wrote:

The rubber band has gone loose though. Any advice how to fix this?

Oh, i forgot about that.

As long as the rubber is not extremely loose, there's a very nice way to fix the problem.
I hope my English is good enough to explain it properly ...

1) remove the rubber band and clean both the rubber as well as the metal part of the lens
2) get a glue such as the "Pattex Repair Gel" (http://www.pattex-adhesives.com.au/en/products/100-percent-line/100percent-repair-gel.html); don't use instant adhesives ("superglues")!
3) apply a thin layer of glue on both sides (metal and rubber parts)
4) put the rubber in its correct position
5) and finally wrap an elastic (!) scotch tape around the rubber, to press down and "shorten" the rubber focusing material
6) remove excessive glue (e. g. using small amounts of acetone)
7) wait for 24 hours, then remove the scotch tape

Step 5 is the most important; it must be done precisely and with enough pressure.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve,

Thanks a lot! Will try and do it.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So I fixed the rubber focusing band thanks Steve. (although I did not do it perfect, it is now very satisfactory).

I read tf report and am not sure what "fire resistance" means: has it got to do with coma?


PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antoine wrote:
So I fixed the rubber focusing band thanks Steve. (although I did not do it perfect, it is now very satisfactory).

I read tf report and am not sure what "fire resistance" means: has it got to do with coma?

I assume it was flare resistance.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Antoine wrote:
So I fixed the rubber focusing band thanks Steve. (although I did not do it perfect, it is now very satisfactory).

I read tf report and am not sure what "fire resistance" means: has it got to do with coma?

I assume it was flare resistance.
yes most likely as the lens is bound to be more fire resistant than th photographer...


PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jamaeolus wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Antoine wrote:
So I fixed the rubber focusing band thanks Steve. (although I did not do it perfect, it is now very satisfactory).

I read tf report and am not sure what "fire resistance" means: has it got to do with coma?

I assume it was flare resistance.
yes most likely as the lens is bound to be more fire resistant than th photographer...

LOL