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's best
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:49 am    Post subject: Minolta's best Reply with quote

Lets say one wants to gather and collect the best lenses from Minolta and make a nice set of lenses for himself.
Lets say 5 or 6 lenses.

Lets not get in never ending stiff-necked arguments, but rather do like fellow member forenSeil did in another post.
Be precise on the exact version, if many versions exist and support your say by disclosing your sources and references.

And i'll take the liberty of quoting fellow member ForenSeil to start this thread...

ForenSeil wrote:
Once I read an old 135mm test ranking made by Colorfoto January 1978 I think, the 135/2.8 Sonnar T* was third place, Elmarit-R 135/2.8 first place and Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 135/2.8 (4 element version) between them, all very close(...)


According to http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html And if we follow ForenSeil, only the:

1977 and 1978 MD Tele Rokkor(-X) with 4/4 lens design and ∅55 filter thread fit the bill....

So i guess that's a start....


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a few Minolta what I like really, 100mm PF 2.0, Minolta latest MD 20mm, 24mm 35mm 1.8 ,50mm f1.2 I didn't like much several earlier ones, probably all good enough to anyone


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a big Minolta fan!
Minolta was a top maker like Nikon, Zeiss or Leitz etc.

Minolta 24/2.8 (all except latest MD version with 49mm filter screwmount and without "Rokkor" which is nothing special) - very sharp and very nice colors. The other wide angle Minoltas are generally also very good.

Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 (Leica M) - light and tiny but very sharp lens, similar to Leica Elmar-C 90/4

Minolta 58/1.2 and 50/1.2 - both awesome!

Minolta MD 50/2 - Pssssst... like the Minolta 135/2.8 often underrated but optically imho one of the very best manual 50ies around, best CA control ever, decent sharpness wide open and ultra sharp stopped down, finest Minolta colors, imho better than 50/1.4 and even a little better than the 50/1.7. I once made a direct comparision on NEX-5N between the MD 50/2, the MD 50/1.4, Hexanon 5X/1.4;5X/1.7;5X1.8, Carl Zeiss HFT Planar 50/1.8 and -believe it or not - the MD 50/2 was better @F2 than all other @F2 - the best is - it can be had for less than 20. Only drawback ist that it's partiall made of plastic.
EDIT: There are at least 3 optically different Minolta 50/2, I think I'm refering about the latest 1981< one.

Minolta MD 200/2.8 and 200/4 - Psssst.... two more lesser known but optically awesome gemstones, both designs containing finest ED glass.

Minolta MC/MD 50/1.4 - Very good, one of the very best 50/1.4's you can get in the league for less then 100. The MD was my most used lens for a long time, but I don't like to use mine anymore since I have FF, as sweet spot wide open and F2 is very tiny. But works nice on APS-C. The MC 50/1.4 PG is said to be best of them, though all are very good.
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-rokkor-50mm-f1-4-t49267,highlight,%2Bminolta.html

Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 (Leica M) - slightly nervous bokeh wide open but except that an optically outstanding lens, tiny as a thimble, even with adapter. Often sold in bundle with very nice Minolta CLE rangefinder. Optically it's identical with Leica Summicron-C 40/2 I think.

Minolta 100/2 - often very expensive but rated to be one of the best and sharpest potrait lenses ever

Minolta 135/2.8 STF - expensive but unique, very sharp and bokeh is so smooth that it becomes weird!

Minolta 16/2.8 Fisheye - a very good fisheye, also to modern standards, design ist practically unchanged still in production (now by Sony) since the 60ies, so good that also even Leitz bought license from Minolta

Minolta 500/8 Mirror - Expensive but one of the very best mirror lenses. Latest version should be optically identical with Leica Mirror Telyt and Sony AF Mirror as far as I know (http://tinyurl.com/nbfxvft)

Minolta MD 250/5.6 Mirror - As small as a normal 50/1.4 lens and very good IQ. Fetches usually ultra high prices on Ebay due rarity and demand in asia.

Minolta 35-70/3.5 Macro - Best zoom lens at it's times and still very good today (it's still able to beat several modern Zeiss zooms like the 1k Zeiss FE Tessar 24-70 in some excercises!), it's optically identical with more expensive Leica R 35-70/3.5. Can be had for 40 or something like that.

Minolta MD 70-200/4 - Well kown, very good reputations, optically identical to the later AF version

Minolta 75-200/4.5 - Pssst.... less known but was the very best zoom in it's range when it was released in 1978 until it was topped first by Nikon and than a little later massivly by Leitz Vario-Elmar-R 80-200/4.5... it did cost 1250DM (nearly 1400) and has an complex (expensive) 15/11 design. Lens was not very succesful due price, the more common successor MD/AF 70-200/4 was very good aswell and did cost a fraction. Today the 75-200 is often much cheaper because it's less known but it's actually not inferior.

Minolta Macros - All Minolta macros primes (100/4, 100/3.5, 100/2.8 and the 50mm) are very sharp lenses at close up range, also to modern standards. But especially the 50mm is slightly inferior at infinity to modern macro primes, and the at least the 100/4 is not colors corrected for Minolta standards, so these are not perfect lenses for general purposes, they are good macro workhorses only.

And of course all Minolta G APO primes - made under highest standards for professional use, quite expensive but also still top of the top of the notch, in the same class as Leica- or Zeiss Apo lenses


Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:07 am; edited 16 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

Based on that you'd be forgiven for thinking the previous 3 versions were the same also... specs basically identical... even the celtics.

As far as respected, obtainable and lightweight I'd say MD 20mm 2.8, 24mm Rokkor(late MC), MD 35mm 1.8, MD 50mm 1,4(55mm), 85mm F2. Naturally people will mention 58mm 1.2, 100mm F2, 135mm F2... but hardly easily sourced or cheap.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't be selling my MC 28/2.5 or 58/1.2 ever.
I have the 50/1.8 & 85/2.8 in LTM en route to me.
The MC 50/1.4 & 24/2.8 are on my list to get.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF: my favorite lens of all.. nothing can create a smoother bokeh

Minolta AF 2/100mm: probably my sharpest lens

Minolta AF 1.4/85mm G: the reason why I'm not even looking for something like a Zeiss Planar 1.4/85

Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO G HS: best Tele I ever owned

Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm: the Zoom which should be labeled "G".. exceptional!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started buying Rokkors two weeks ago. They are cheaper than M42 , PK, FD here in PL.
MC 50/1.4 PG 45 euros, MC 28/3.5 SG 35 euros, MD 45/2 20 euros, MD 75/200 4.5 22euros. All in very good condition.
I had no time to make extensive tests but I am happy with the first shots.
The zoom is an impressive piece of optic and it is mint.
There are some very good opinions about it especially in Germany and also more critical. I hope that unsere Freunde are right.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rokkor-SG 3.5/28 is an amazing lens, probably the best 28 I've ever found, it has 7 elements unlike the later version that has only 5

Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 and MD 1.7/50 both among the best 50s available, don't believe the nonsense about the 2/50 being better, there is nothing to choose between them

MD 2/45 pancake, very underrated, has wonderful colours and character, the 1.7/50 is a tiny bit sharper but the 2/45 has a character all it's own that I really like

3.5-4.5/28-85 superb lens, better than the more hyped 4/35-70


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta lenses are very good..
I have several and still looking to add some more.
The best I have tried so far are:
- Rokkor 1.2/58mm
- Rokkor 2.0/100mm
- Rokkor 1.8/35mm
- Rokkor 1.7/85mm

All them are highly recommended.

Like you, also I am putting effort to collect 6-7 TOP Minolta lenses...
So, I am looking after:
1) Rokkor 2.0/135mm
2) Rokkor 1.2/50mm
3) Rokkor 2.8/24mm


Last edited by vlousada on Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had some minoltas, both sr and af, the ones I remember as outstanding for various reasons are:

MC Rokkor PG 1.4/50
MD Rokkor 1.7/50 (and AF 1.7/50, i suspect they are more or less the same)
MC Tele Rokkor QD 2.8/135
the 35/70 zoom, both the MC/MD version and the AF "mini beercan" one
AF 70/210 f4 "beercan"
the recently acquired MC Rokkor SI 2.5/28, which is quickly becoming one of my favourites, because of a great mix of technical qualities and character.
MC Rokkor PF 85/1.7

I need to add that the second MC line is one of my favourite series ever in terms of feel/build quality.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found a lovely rokkor MC 100mm f2.5, not as sought after as the f2, but a very nice performer (only tested on crop so far). Seems a bit of an oddity, but probably worth getting if the price is right. Not many for sale.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've used Minolta since 1973, yet I've had very few Minolta lenses, mainly because I couldn't afford them back then. I was fortunate to get the MC 1.4/50 PG with my first camera and I still love the lens. I believe from what I have read, it's highly regarded among the 50s.

The 2.8/135 four element actually includes the MC version right before the MD. Some folks at this German site have done a good job helping to identify the lenses: http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive

From what I have read, but not personal experience, the 2/100 seems a highly regarded lens. Same for the 24mm. So far, these are all Rokkors. I think there was a little slip when the dropped the Rokkor label, but why I don't know. However, some zooms were very good too, as far as zooms go. The only AF and only zoom I use is the Minolta 35-105 (second version) and it amazes me every time.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rokkor 50/1.4 (all versions are great, I believe there were 4 or 5 of them). One of the best fast fifties. Better than SMC Takumar 50/1.4.

Rokkor 85/2. The sharpest 85mm f/2 lens I ever seen. Sharp, sharp, sharp! Very compact, too, and great flare resistance. If you were to say negative things about this lens, they would be the plastic aperture control ring, and maybe slightly harsh background rendering (mind you, not harsh harsh, but compared to 85/1.7...) These still go for peanuts. MD 85/2 is an undiscovered gem.

Rokkor 85/1.7. Unfortunately, they are well known, so their prices are high. Other than that, great creamy bokeh, natural contrast and nice colors. I prefer this lens when shooting portraits under strong sunlight.

Rokkor MD 100/2.5. I can only vouch for MD version because the older MC (which is, by the way, a different optical construction) is much more difficult to convert to EOS. Anyway; the MD 100/2.5 is a great portrait lens, with a more gentle rendering compared to Nikkor AIS 105/2.5.

Rokkor MD (and late MC) 135/2.8 with 55mm filter ring. In other words, the version with 4 lens in 4 groups construction (Minolta had 3 different 135/2.8's; the 4/4 is the best of them, sharpness wise). Some prefer the earlier MC version for its smoother bokeh, but again, the MD lens is much easier to convert to EOS, so I only have experience with MD.

There are definitely many other gems in the Rokkor lineup, but as I'm using mine on Canon 5Dmk2, converting wide-angles with floating elements is a no-no. So there we go, with standard lenses and mid-teles.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

28 / 3.5, I like a lot.
45 / 2, very good, but close to the 50's so I don't use it much.
50 / 1.4, just about my favorite lens
50 / 1.7, lovely lens, but I reach for the 1.4
100 / 2.5 Superb lens, I love everything about this lens.
100 / 3.5 Macro, it's a big heavy thing, but sharp - very sharp.
135 / 2.8 Another favorite,
135 / 3.5 Some say this is the sharper 135? maybe it is, it's another very good lens.
35-70 / 3.5 Macro, don't leave home without it Wink

I got into Minolta's very late, I was always a Canon + Pentax man, I wish I'd discovered Minolta a long time ago. Cool


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two lenses that I own, that stand out, even above the MC/MD Rokkor 50mm F1.4 lenses, and many other great Minolta MC & MC Rokkors:

Minolta MD 85mm F2

Minolta MD 100mm F4 Macro


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I could gather, these are the most interesting Minolta primes (my personal favourites are bolded):

-MC/MD 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (both the 11/8 and the 10/7 version)
-MC/MD 17mm f/4
-MD 20mm f/2.8 (not as good as the MC21 but much smaller)
-MC 21mm f/2.8
-MC/MD 24mm f/2.8 (the 9/7 version, the late MD 8/8 version is worse but still quite good, the VFC version may be better)
-MC/MD 28mm f/2 (the 10/9 version, the late MD 9/9 version seems to be worse) EDIT: Actually it seems to be the other way around if the tests at artaphot.ch are to be believed!
-MC/MD 35mm f/1.8 (the MC and early MD version, the late MD version seems to be a bit worse)
-MC/MD 50mm f/1.4 (The MC "Rokkor-PG" version seems to be the best for Bokeh and wide open sharpness, the late MD version is slightly sharper when stopped down)
-MD 50mm f/1.2
-MC 58mm f/1.4
-MC 58mm f/1.2
-MC 85mm f/1.7
-MD 85mm f/2
-MD 100mm f/2.5 (the late, plain MD version)
-MC/MD 135mm f/2.8 (the 4/4 version)
-MD 135mm f/2
-MC/MD 200mm f/4 (the late MC and early MD version, the lighter and smaller late MD version is worse)
-MD 200mm f/2.8

Some are very rare and probably too expensive (16/2.8, 21/2.8, 135/2 ),
some are affordable though not cheap (24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/1.2, 58/1.2, 85/1.7, 85/2, 200/2.8 )
and some can often be had for great prices (50/1.4, 100/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/4 )
There are other, less 'special' lenses that are still quite good and often dirt cheap (i.e. 35/2.8, 50/1.7 )

The 28/2 and 35/1.8 make great normal lenses on APS-C, the 35/1.8 is a bit sharper but it's a matter of choice.
The f/1.2's (50 & 58 ) make great portrait lenses on APS-C, the 50/1.2 is probably the better choice as a general purpouse lens on FF cameras.
The 85/1.7 is a great portrait lens on FF cameras, on APS-C the 85/2 may be the better choice (sharper across the frame).

I have collected a few (24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 58/1.2, 100/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/4 and a 85/1.7 is on the way) and I am very satisfied with all of them.

If the money isn't too tight, I'd suggest looking for these:
21/2.8 or 24/2.8
28/2 or 35/1.8
50/1.2 or 58/1.2
85/2 or 85/1.7
135/2.8 or 135/2
200/4 or 200/2.8

For small budgets these are the ones to look for:
35/2.8 or 28/2.8
50/1.4 ("MC Rokkor-PG") or 50/1.7
100/2.5 (the 'plain MD' version)
135/2.8 (the 4/4 version)
200/4 (the heavier version)

Daniels list (http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/) helps with identifying the different versions.

You may be able to find the more expensive lenses at good prices, sometimes the sellers have no idea what they have...
(I paid 39 for my 58/1,2 and 25 for my 35/1.8)


regards
Jan


more sources:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive
http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:46 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

with all the good words forinseil has put in about the MD 50mm F2 I managed to find one today for cheap and I have to admit it is a nice lens to use, I always discounted it due to its speed but it seems much nicer than than 1.7 I had:)


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
with all the good words forinseil has put in about the MD 50mm F2 I managed to find one today for cheap and I have to admit it is a nice lens to use, I always discounted it due to its speed but it seems much nicer than than 1.7 I had:)


They built that thing in large numbers and without the need for speed they could optimize the design for other goals.

ForenSeil wrote:
Minolta MD 50/2 - Pssssst... like the Minolta 135/2.8 often underrated but optically imho one of the very best manual 50ies around, best CA control ever, decent sharpness wide open and ultra sharp stopped down, finest Minolta colors, imho better than 50/1.4 and even a little better than the 50/1.7. I once made a direct comparision on NEX-5N between the MD 50/2, the MD 50/1.4, Hexanon 5X/1.4;5X/1.7;5X1.8, Carl Zeiss HFT Planar 50/1.8 and -believe it or not - the MD 50/2 was better @F2 than all other @F2 - the best is - it can be had for less than 20. Only drawback ist that it's partiall made of plastic.

I wonder how it compares to the MC "Rokkor-PG" 50/1.4 and the f/1.2's (or the Helios-44?). It sounds like a great choice for a compact kit or for an expendable one for hazardous circumstances.

Also, Rokkorfiles has a few interesting comparisons, I don't think these have been linked to yet.

MD50/1.2 vs MC58/1.2:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm

MC "Rokkor-PG" 50/1.4 vs MC "Rokkor-X" 50/1.4:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s2.htm

MC 85/1.7 vs MD 85/1.7 vs MD 85/2 vs 85/2.8 Varisoft:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/85mm%20Page%201.htm

All their lens reviews:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens%20Reviews.html

Those comparisons are great if you can't decide between the f/1.2's or the 85's. (No, you can't have both. There are people who can help you with your addiction... Wink )


I think this would be my final list of 6, like Mir asked for:
MC 21/2.8
MD 35/1.8 (the early MD version)
MC 58/1.2 (for APS-C, the MD 50/1.2 for FF)
MD 85/2 (for APS-C, the MC 85/1.7 for FF)
MD 135/2
MD 200/2.8 (and the MD 300-s 2x converter too, if it doesn't count as a 7th lens)

regards
Jan[url][/url] Wink


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boris_Akunin wrote:
Layer-cake wrote:
with all the good words forinseil has put in about the MD 50mm F2 I managed to find one today for cheap and I have to admit it is a nice lens to use, I always discounted it due to its speed but it seems much nicer than than 1.7 I had:)


They built that thing in large numbers and without the need for speed they could optimize the design for other goals.

ForenSeil wrote:
Minolta MD 50/2 - Pssssst... like the Minolta 135/2.8 often underrated but optically imho one of the very best manual 50ies around, best CA control ever, decent sharpness wide open and ultra sharp stopped down, finest Minolta colors, imho better than 50/1.4 and even a little better than the 50/1.7. I once made a direct comparision on NEX-5N between the MD 50/2, the MD 50/1.4, Hexanon 5X/1.4;5X/1.7;5X1.8, Carl Zeiss HFT Planar 50/1.8 and -believe it or not - the MD 50/2 was better @F2 than all other @F2 - the best is - it can be had for less than 20. Only drawback ist that it's partiall made of plastic.

I wonder how it compares to the MC "Rokkor-PG" 50/1.4 and the f/1.2's (or the Helios-44?). It sounds like a great choice for a compact kit or for an expendable one for hazardous circumstances.


I've also had it in this wide open comparision with Helios 44 and some others, here it was the winner aswell.
http://forum.mflenses.com/a-little-comparision-between-some-cheap-50mm-lenses-t45319,highlight,%2B50mm.html
It a secret Summicron-R 50/2 V1.5 Wink

I would expect that the F1.2's would have more vignetting @F2 and slightly lower contrast and that they should both on about the same level @F8; except that I would expect more barrel distortion on the F1.2's

But I have the slight suspection that MD 50/2 has either slightly worse quality control than their more expensive metal counterparts or that there are more than one... often I read mixed reviews about it, sometimes it's the "very best" like my test did show, sometimes slightly inferior to the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7, some people were even saying it's a "toss-away"....
EDIT: There are at least three versions of the Minolta 50/2, 1973 MC 50/2, 1977 MD and 1981 MD - should be the reason for hardly mixed opinions; I guess I'm refering to the latest one
Btw.: Between the second and the third 50/2 there was the MD 45/2 in production for a short time.

Here are some samples on film: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1219748.html#1219748


Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:02 am; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForenSeil wrote:
I've also had it in this wide open comparision with Helios 44 and some others, here it was the winner aswell.
http://forum.mflenses.com/a-little-comparision-between-some-cheap-50mm-lenses-t45319,highlight,%2B50mm.html
It a secret Summicron-R 50/2 V1.5 Wink

I would expect that the F1.2's would have worse corners @F2 and slightly lower contrast and that they should both on about the same level @F8


Thanks, I think I need to grab one of those off ebay. It's a nice compact alternative to the 58 and I can sell off my 50/1.4.
I just found a great deal for a Fuji kit at a local dealer (X-E1 + 18-55 + 55-230* new for 750), if I find a 50/2 I can post a direct comparison with the 58 if anyone's interested. I'll have to reduce my Minolta collection to the few best lenses anyway (those in my sig are just the primes) so I'll be making test shot with all of them.


*That one will be on sale the next day...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand the rational (or maybe just don't agree) of making wide open comparisons of different speed lenses. Certainly before I made a judgement between any of them, I'd want to know how they compared at the first common aperture. Is the f/2 better at f/2 than a 1.4 version is at f/2?

The link to the comparison of 1.4/50 MC and MD lenses seems to be splitting hairs. I can't imagine there being a perceivable difference in regular use. I'm more than happy with my 1.4/50 MC PG. I use it because I love it, and I love it when I use it.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
I don't understand the rational (or maybe just don't agree) of making wide open comparisons of different speed lenses. Certainly before I made a judgement between any of them, I'd want to know how they compared at the first common aperture. Is the f/2 better at f/2 than a 1.4 version is at f/2?

It gives a good idea about their character, that's why I've made it that way these days.
Also to make a comparision @F2.8 would be slightly unfair, as the Tessar and Industars were wide open there while others already stopped down for two full stops.
That would consequently lead to a comparision of all lenses at all stops from wide open to F16, which is too much efford for a quick test of so many cheap lenses Very Happy

But I can asure you, that also @F2-only and @F2.8-only comparision that Minolta MD 50/2 would have been the winner aswell, and at F5.6 it would be hard to see differences in terms of sharpness from most of the competitors in that test setup.

PS:
The MC PG 50/1.4 has slightly better ratings than the MD 50/1.4 btw. but as you said the differences are rather small.


Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:27 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
The link to the comparison of 1.4/50 MC and MD lenses seems to be splitting hairs. I can't imagine there being a perceivable difference in regular use. I'm more than happy with my 1.4/50 MC PG. I use it because I love it, and I love it when I use it.


The 50/1.4's have different optical formulas, those with 55mm filter thread are 7/5 (supposedly derived from the MC58/1.2), the 49mm versions are 7/6 (like the 50/1.2).
They are very close and sample variation may make more of a difference than the optical formula but they're not all the same.
The 7/5 "MC Rokkor-PG" version seems to have become a bit of a favourite.

I'd take the MC version just for it's smoother focus ring (brass on aluminium, Minolta switched to alu/alu to save weight)


Sauce:
http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those reading french , there is a site under the name of Suaudeau which shows some interesting comparisons.
There is an extensive one on Rokkors standard lenses.
Based on the information of this site, I bought the MC 50 1.4 FG and the MC 28 3.5 SG.


Last edited by memetph on Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:58 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Definitely the Rokkor 2/28.