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

Minolta MD Rokkor 45mm/F2
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:55 am    Post subject: Minolta MD Rokkor 45mm/F2 Reply with quote

Inspired from the thread about the MD 50/2 lens I've taken the predecessor lens on my today's dog walk. It was btw. the warmest November day in Austria since temperatures are measured (max. 24 centigrades).

This lens is a little bit smaller compared to it's successor but besides that not very different. Specifications and picture of the lens may be seen here: http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/153-minolta-45mm-f2

All pictures shot with my Ricoh GXR-M and converted in LR6. The used aperture varies between F2 and F5.6. Smaller apertures don't really increase any picture quality further.



























For the pixel peepers a 100% crop of the first picture:



If anybody finds any major shortcomings he might keep them. Smile

It was said by another member that the 50mm sibling is the sharper lens. I don't believe that any longer. How would a "sharper" lens look like?
Maybe another lens delivers higher resolution but on the used camera you wouldn't see any difference. Maybe on a 50MP/FF camera. I don't know.

As always comments are welcome.

Cheers,


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive, indeed; I own that lens, but still miss the right adapter to test it. Thanks for sharing!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact I think this one is better than Konica 40MM/F1.8. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It isn't better or worse, maybe it is when you shoot test charts in a laboratory, but picture quality is what counts in the end!

Like the 2/50 this one is also a bit "forgotten". People always want the f/1.4 or f/1.2 versions and they completely forget that the joy of taking pictures isn't made by expensive equipment.

You can have so much fun with the "cheap" kitlenses from the old days!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
It isn't better or worse, maybe it is when you shoot test charts in a laboratory, but picture quality is what counts in the end!


I have no idea. The only Hexanons I have are for the Koni Omega 6X7 camera.
However, I know for sure that there are visibly worse lenses in this range around and I am not talking about test charts.
I would at least say that this Rokkor was a very good buy for 20 Euro including shipping earlier this year.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice Thomas... Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix & Kryss

Thank you!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice results!
I often think of buying Minolta lenses even though I don't have a camera to use them on.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I swapped some stuff with Ian ages ago and got one of these 45 / 2 Rokkors in the deal, and hardly used it as I reach for the 50 / 1.4 if Im having a Rokkor day, which is often. But I did take this lens out a few weeks ago and it surprised me. I think I shall be using it a bit more from now on.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a minolta MD 50 f2 that I got with a bag of camera stuff for 20 dollars at a local 2nd hand shop. On my Canon 60D they were very nice but due to short flange distance I could not get even close to infinity. I swore I would try it again when I got a mirrorless. I have yet to follow through. I have been buying up the inexpensive Konica and Minoltas that give such great results on mirrorless (A7ii) and have been pleased with all that I have tried. I have this lens, the 45 F2 (I think) and will have to give it a try. Weather has been very crappy lately here though.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1
Some great results.

I've had very good results with Minoltas on my a6000. Shots like yours got me curious about this lens. It seems to have a demand as prices range 35-60 USD.
Luckily, found one for a lot less. I also thought this was a very good performing pancake.
A Minolta collector on another forum touted the sharpness of the stupidly affordable MD III 50 f/2. So, I got one to try. And yes, cheaper than a pizza!
But looking at the images, it didn't eclipse the 45mm f/2. I thought the 45 was equally sharp, if not sharper. And preferred the rendering from the 45mm.

I also read (I think here) about the history of this lens....the claim was the 45mm and the Konica 40mm f/1.8 are the same lens. One marketed it at each end of the tolerance range. It's focal length is actually 42.5mm. Could be true given Konica and Minolta did merge.

But I do know the Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 was not made in-house by Konica, but commissioned Tokina to make it.


Some pics from my Rokkor 45mm at f/2:

DSC05765_Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f2 by wNG 555, on Flickr

DSC05775a_Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f2 by wNG 555, on Flickr

DSC05763_Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f2 by wNG 555, on Flickr

This one should be at f/4:
DSC05766_Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f2 by wNG 555, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I swapped some stuff with Ian ages ago and got one of these 45 / 2 Rokkors in the deal, and hardly used it as I reach for the 50 / 1.4 if Im having a Rokkor day, which is often. But I did take this lens out a few weeks ago and it surprised me. I think I shall be using it a bit more from now on.


I missed that 2/45 after a while so I bought another one. Smile

It is a better lens than the over-hyped Konica 1.8/40, on several fronts, most obviously in the bokeh which is very smooth and attractive to my eyes, whereas the Hexanon's bokeh is quite busy. I also find the Minolta has really vibrant, saturated colours.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WNG555 wrote:

Some great results.


Thank you, Sir! Wink

Your's are not bad as well......


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
WNG555 wrote:

Some great results.


Thank you, Sir! Wink

Your's are not bad as well......



Thanks! Smile
Friends


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This one is a bit of an odd lens out, not quite a pancake, but definitely not a cheap-o "kit" lens (at least not optically).

I liked this one on my film cameras and it's fantastic on M4/3. The modern Olympus glass *might* be sharper, but then again...

This is one of the lenses that keeps me contemplating an a7 purchase Sad

all images taken with Olympus OM-D E-M5

slack chain and pentagons by David Wimmer, on Flickr

Six and Five by David Wimmer, on Flickr

P4170012 by David Wimmer, on Flickr

P7050040 by David Wimmer, on Flickr

P4170016 by David Wimmer, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

awa54 wrote:
This is one of the lenses that keeps me contemplating an a7 purchase


Certainly not a bad idea. Maybe I should test this lens on my recently acquired A7R2 as well. It's most probably likewise good as its successor (MD 50/2).

BTW, nice examples. Thanks for posting.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

awa54 wrote:
...

This is one of the lenses that keeps me contemplating an a7 purchase Sad


The Minolta MD 2/45mm is not the best lens on 24MP FF. It's design is a bit overstreched; the Konica AR 1.8/40mm would be a better choice. Even better than the Konica would be the MD-III 2/50mm. In addition to its very good corner resolution it is free from distortion (about 0.1%).

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
awa54 wrote:
...

This is one of the lenses that keeps me contemplating an a7 purchase Sad


The Minolta MD 2/45mm is not the best lens on 24MP FF. It's design is a bit overstreched; the Konica AR 1.8/40mm would be a better choice. Even better than the Konica would be the MD-III 2/50mm. In addition to its very good corner resolution it is free from distortion (about 0.1%).

Stephan


Interesting... on M4/3 the 45/2 beats the 50/2 by a noticeable margin in the center and by a slightly lesser margin at the corners. I know that the smaller sensor benefits from utilizing the center of the lens' image circle, but the 16MP M4/3 sensor does have a significantly higher pixel density than the 24MP FF sensor, which should make it more revealing of ultimate optical resolution.

**I should note that I have both the early and late variants of the MD 50mm f/2 and three copies of the 45mm f/2. The early 50 seems like the better lens of my copies and my 45s are all indistinguishable from each other optically. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an a7 of any stripe in my near future... though an a7R III would would be quite a step up from my current a900+OM-D E-M5 lineup.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

awa54 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
awa54 wrote:
...

This is one of the lenses that keeps me contemplating an a7 purchase Sad


The Minolta MD 2/45mm is not the best lens on 24MP FF. It's design is a bit overstreched; the Konica AR 1.8/40mm would be a better choice. Even better than the Konica would be the MD-III 2/50mm. In addition to its very good corner resolution it is free from distortion (about 0.1%).

Stephan


Interesting... on M4/3 the 45/2 beats the 50/2 by a noticeable margin in the center and by a slightly lesser margin at the corners. I know that the smaller sensor benefits from utilizing the center of the lens' image circle, but the 16MP M4/3 sensor does have a significantly higher pixel density than the 24MP FF sensor, which should make it more revealing of ultimate optical resolution.

**I should note that I have both the early and late variants of the MD 50mm f/2 and three copies of the 45mm f/2. The early 50 seems like the better lens of my copies and my 45s are all indistinguishable from each other optically. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an a7 of any stripe in my near future... though an a7R III would would be quite a step up from my current a900+OM-D E-M5 lineup.


I've just done a very quick comparison between the two lenses on my A7R2 42MP/FF camera at 100 ISO (infinity landscape only free hand wide open and at F5.6) and I would not be able to tell any difference, not even in pixel peeping mode. Sorry.
It may well be that if compared in a studio test scenery under controlled conditions one lens has the edge over the other but under normal conditions in real life photography I really doubt that anybody would be able to spot any difference without knowing before which picture was shot with which lens. At least that's my personal impression after watching the results on my 32 inch 4K monitor even in 100% view.
My initial judgement originally based on the Ricoh GXR-M APS-C camera hasn't changed therefore.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

I've just done a very quick comparison between the two lenses ...

Which two lenses? MD 2/45 and MD 2/50mm? And if so, which computation of the MD 2/50mm - MD-I or MD-III?

tb_a wrote:

... on my A7R2 42MP/FF camera at 100 ISO (infinity landscape only free hand wide open and at F5.6) and I would not be able to tell any difference, not even in pixel peeping mode. Sorry.

If you compare a MD-I 2/50mm and a MD 2/45mm, i would agree Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
tb_a wrote:

I've just done a very quick comparison between the two lenses ...

Which two lenses? MD 2/45 and MD 2/50mm? And if so, which computation of the MD 2/50mm - MD-I or MD-III?

tb_a wrote:

... on my A7R2 42MP/FF camera at 100 ISO (infinity landscape only free hand wide open and at F5.6) and I would not be able to tell any difference, not even in pixel peeping mode. Sorry.

If you compare a MD-I 2/50mm and a MD 2/45mm, i would agree Wink

Stephan


Huh, my 50/2 MD-III must be a dud.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

awa54 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
tb_a wrote:

I've just done a very quick comparison between the two lenses ...

Which two lenses? MD 2/45 and MD 2/50mm? And if so, which computation of the MD 2/50mm - MD-I or MD-III?

tb_a wrote:

... on my A7R2 42MP/FF camera at 100 ISO (infinity landscape only free hand wide open and at F5.6) and I would not be able to tell any difference, not even in pixel peeping mode. Sorry.

If you compare a MD-I 2/50mm and a MD 2/45mm, i would agree Wink

Stephan


Huh, my 50/2 MD-III must be a dud.


Sorry, I've forgotten to mention that I have only the MD-III 50mm/F2 lens. Therefore my comparison was between the MD-III 50mm/F2 and the MD-II 45mm/F2 and I have only 1 copy per lens.
Additionally I should also clarify that I've applied the existing lens profiles which are available for both lenses within Lightroom 6.14 and I primarily concentrated on sharpness across the frame; i.e. this was no scientific test by any means.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like we're into the realm of lenses that perform closely enough that sample variation may be the biggest difference... Although I would argue that the 50mm variants show marginally smoother bokeh than the 45, which many would perceive as a superior feature.

I wonder how a six bladed (or more) aperture would affect the overall rendering of the 45/2?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

awa54 wrote:
Looks like we're into the realm of lenses that perform closely enough that sample variation may be the biggest difference...


That may well be. On the other hand we should not forget that the used camera/sensor plays also a very important role for the final picture quality. Therefore meaningful comparisons can only be made on the same camera-lens combinations.
I've realized that if I compare the pictures of the same lens on both of my FF cameras (Sony A850 24MP and Sony A7R2 42MP) the result may be quite different, particularly in pixel peeping mode. Most probably the existence of an anti-aliasing or low pass filter like in the A850 plays also a certain role for the individual subjective impression and not only the resolution of the sensor.

Last but not least we should never forget that the final pictures are composed by our brains based on our individual and most probably different "experience data bases" triggered by the signals delivered from our eyes. Most probably there we have the biggest "sample variations". Wink