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 MC W. ROKKOR-X 2.8/21
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:16 am    Post subject: MINOLTA MC W. ROKKOR-X 2.8/21 Reply with quote

MINOLTA MC W. ROKKOR-X 2.8/21
1974 - MC X - 72∅ - 6 Blades - MFD 25cm

Used it a couple of times last fall....




















PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great samples! I'd love to know how it compares to the MD 2.8/20 (besides that 1mm difference).


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
Great samples! I'd love to know how it compares to the MD 2.8/20 (besides that 1mm difference).


I found different statements on that but I've never seen a direct comparison.
Stephan from Artaphot who tested both versions (also on FF) stated that the optical quality is more or less the same; i.e. that the 21mm lens is not better than the later 20mm construction. The difference in size and weight (the 21mm lens is almost double of the 20mm one) may also play a role for selecting the "right" lens. The legendary reputation of the 21mm lens is primarily caused by being the first lens like this ever (with floating elements), i.e. there was nothing comparable from the competition when this lens was introduced the first time in 1968 (version MC II).
For economical reasons I preferred to go for the Minolta AF 20mm lens instead. It's available for almost the half price of those older lenses and the optical quality is comparable (most probably better).


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

I found different statements on that but I've never seen a direct comparison.
Stephan from Artaphot who tested both versions (also on FF) stated that the optical quality is more or less the same; i.e. that the 21mm lens is not better than the later 20mm construction.


Exactly.
The 21mm is being compared to the Zeiss Distagon. I do have the MD 2.8/20, very happy with it, but never had the opportunity to either buy the Zeiss or the Minolta 21mm. But the collector in me wants the 21mm as well some day! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vwry nice pictures!

I got my MD R 20mm 2.8 for about 100€ in mint condition, so did not hesitate. I am very happy with it as it is very light and compact.
I read Philip Reeve comparison where it underperformed with the Canon which fares much better... but did not see any problem with my lens. Bad sample? I don't know but when I need wide angle this is either this one or the MD 24 f2.8 MDII.
And for ultra wide, I sometimes combine Zhonghi turbo 2, MD 20mm and Olympus 0.8* wide conversion lens I bought when the first Olympus digital camera came out (5 Mpix) which screws with 55 mm diameter...to great effect... not for architectural though.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antoine wrote:
And for ultra wide, I sometimes combine Zhonghi turbo 2, MD 20mm and Olympus 0.8* wide conversion lens I bought when the first Olympus digital camera came out (5 Mpix) which screws with 55 mm diameter...to great effect... not for architectural though.


Interesting. I never tried that.

I've done a new posting on that: http://forum.mflenses.com/wide-angle-converter-experiment-t76786.html


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, the colors. Nice.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a truly fabulous lens, if you ask me. The best (and only) of its time.
But i now have the more "modern" Ultron 1.8/21......Cool ...... and it's about half the Minolta's size.....

Who wants the Minolta !


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Send $$$


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mir wrote:


Who wants the Minolta !



Should be easy to find somebody! Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 small Like 1 small Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

...
I preferred to go for the Minolta AF 20mm lens instead. It's available for almost the half price of those older lenses and the optical quality is comparable (most probably better).


I absolutely agree on that.

The MC 2.8/21mm, especially in its "MC-X" incarnation, is a beautiful lens, but being calculated 50 years ago, it clearly has its limits. It is beautifully machined, it performs much better than the contemporary Tamron 4.5/21mm (which is horrible), and it was the fastest 21mm at its time. But when you compare it to a modern Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21mm, using a 42MP A7RII, the differences are dramatic.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Traditionally, the review:



PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had this lens 7? years, and just learned something new...
Quote:
Lens has an interesting construction – the front lens is rotating during the focusing but the frame with the filter thread doesn’t move.

Thanks.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It isn't my finding, I've just heard about it even before the getting my copy ))


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Comparison on the infinity - Rokkor 21mm F2.8 vs Minolta MD-III 20mm F2.8



link


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have had several copies of the MDIII 20mm f/2.8 come though my hands, and at least 8 copies of the MC 21mm f/2.8.

Regardless of what users may experience in terms of sharpness of the MC 21mm f/2.8 vs the MDIII 20mm f/2.8, one oddity I can categorically state:

The MDIII 20mm renders colours more neutral than the MC 21mm under artificial lighting. Under daylight the difference is less pronounced (although still noticeable once you have spotted it, it is one of those things you can't "un-see"). But under artificial lighting (esp. fluorescent) the MC 21mm has a faint, but nevertheless noticeable straw/amber tint to it, all (as I said at least 8 ) copies of the MC 21mm I examined exhibited this behaviour.

So much so that I still wonder if this is an undocumented case of use of radioactive thorium glass by Minolta; it was a contemporary after all of the known radioactive MC 58mm f/1.2 (early variant) and MC 28mm f/2.5.

UV exposure did not seem to cure it however, so it would be good if anyone who has one of these lenses + Geiger counter can confirm; it probably won't be much, but thorium lens radiation is enough that it occasionally prevents earlier copies of the 58mm f/1.2 from making it through customs when shipping internationally.

The MD 20mm I would say in general terms of IQ is only slightly ahead of the MC 21mm.

However, the MC 21mm in comparison is huge and heavy, and if left unserviced has a nasty habit of internal glass etching (as visible streaks) owing to one of the waste products of the deteriorating foam Minolta put inside this lens (probably an acid/alkaline). The front surface of the fourth element is usually the one affected by this, and unsalvageable once affected.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fantastic info. So no general mid zone dip on the 20.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shot with the later MC-X version (rubber waffle focus grip) of the Minolta MC W.ROKKOR - NL 21mm f/2.8

This was after I had given it a full CLA (total disassembly).

Camera: SONY A7s

Location: Folkestone harbour, Kent, UK

Full image below, with 100% crops of center, corner and bottom edge

ISO 100, 1/500s:




Center 100%:




Corner 100%:




Edge 100%:



PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What aperture?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
What aperture?


Not something I usually record I'm afraid, but very likely around f/11 mark; I would have been looking for a large DOF but usually avoid f/16 as diffraction than slowly starts to set in.

(It was a very bright morning to UK standards Wink )

Nevertheless, DOF is starting to limit sharpness here at the bottom edge as well the right edge of the frame (the "GAP" is much closer to the lens than it looks, I was kneeling)


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couple of extra notes:

- A modest amount of complex "moustache" distortion is evident from the wall on the left hand side
- A faint spot of flare is visible on the left side as well (flare can be an issue with this lens)
- Contrast would likely be a bit higher on a more modern 20mm lens

Still, the Minolta 21/2.8 is one of my favourite lenses. I do sometimes use the MD 20/2.8, but somehow I find the 21/2.8 a bit more pleasant in handling (despite its weight).

It needs the hood though. The unusual original hood is not too effective at this wide angle of view, but it does give a few degrees more leeway as to positioning of the sun, which sometimes is all you need.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only modern lens I own is in this focal range, but I think I could easily live with this old lens its performance.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:00 pm; edited 2 times in total