Minolta MD Celtic?

[spiralcity]

Are there any Minolta fans here? I have never shot with a Minolta lens and was curious about the Celtic line offered by Minolta. They sell them dirt cheap on eBay. I seen at least 7 or 8 Minolta 135mm Celtics listed as 'buy now', for under 20.00 USD. I ordered an adapter for my Pentax, I wont get infinity, but my goal is to use the lenses for close-up or macro work.

So, Celtic line opinions? Perhaps some photos from a Celtic 135mm lens?

Thanks in advance.

[TrueLoveOne]

The Celtic line is Minolta's budget line. Differences in build quality, coating and some have a different optical design.

I do not know how they perform, never seen one for sale in the Netherlands.

Here's a list: http://minolta.rokkor.de/celticlenses.htm

Cheers, René!

[Excalibur]

[Teemō]

I've always read that the Celtic 135's are good. I don't believe the 5/4 element/group Cetic is an original Minolta computation as they never had a 135mm in that configuration and it's significantly longer and heavier than any other. The 4/4 Celtic (denoted by built-in lens shade) on the other hand, is the same optics set as the 4/4 MC-X and MD-I.
It's not confirmed anywhere reliably, but the Celtic line is supposed to have used a reduced multicoating. To my own eye, it seems not as complex as even the older MC-I and MC-II era lenses and reminds me more of the Auto-Rokkor lenses but without having any to compare or see in hand (except for 1), it's all a bit of speculation. I've read that some internal elements may only be single-coated as well.

It's mentioned here [http://www.subclub.org/minman/mcceltic.htm] the other details: "Prior to the Rokkor-X line, Minolta lenses used an achromatic coating on its lenses. This provides more than adequate protection against flare in most situations. The MC Celtic line continued to use the older coating which helped reduce the cost. They also cut a few other corners. For example, the red alignment bump of the MC Rokkor-X line is replaced with a painted red dot, DOF buttons are not included, lens cases and hoods were accessories, the warranty period was shorter, the focal length is not painted on the lens barrel, and the lens caps are less-expensive, push-on types."

Overall Celtic is supposed to be the same quality optics - the same as the regular Rokkor line - dressed in a cheaper package.

[spiralcity]

[spiralcity]

Thanks for the quick helpful replies guys. I think the Celtic is so cheap, that it wouldn't hurt to give one a go.

[iangreenhalgh1]

The Celtics were only sold in the US, so us Europeans have no idea I'm afraid.

Minolta MD lenses I own and I think are all very good to excellent:

2/45
1.7/50
2/50
1.4/50
2.8/35
2.8/28

[TrueLoveOne]

[Lloydy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I've never seen one here either, and Minolta lenses are hardly uncommon here.

[dnas]

Minolta MC and MD lenses are often dirt cheap here in Japan. The main problem is fungus. The hot and humid summers play havoc with lenses.

One thing to note about many MD lenses, the lens groups are often sealed. And if there is fungus inside a group, you can't open it.

That said, you can find plenty of MC lenses with fungus, that are super easy to open and clean.
E.g. I see many MC 55mm F1.7 lenses, for less than $10 equivalent. And loads of 135mm, F2.8 and F3.5

[spiralcity]

I just purchased a pair of Minolta 135mm for a whopping 40.00, that includes shipping. I landed the Celtic and the standard MD on best offers. I highly doubt there will be a difference in performance, but for 40.00 I couldn't pass. They will be my first Minolta's. I seen a 100mm, I believe it was labeled QE @ 3.5. I will have to double check on that, but any how it was listed in the 60.00 range, stated as extremely clean.

Here are the lenses I won.

[Lloydy]

The 100 / 3.5 ....if it is the MACRO lens, is a great lens and usually demands a good price.

[spiralcity]

[TrueLoveOne]

[TrueLoveOne]

Lol! Posted it together i guess!

[tb_a]

[tb_a]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have that 3.5/100, it is an excellent lens.

[scsambrook]

[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]The Celtics were only sold in the US, so us Europeans have no idea I'm afraid. . . ]

I'm afraid that the Celtic lenses were indeed sold in the UK in the 1970s. I can say so with absolute certainty because we had at least the 28mm and 135mm in stock. They came from the official Minolta importer (Japanese Cameras Ltd, part of the Photopia International Group ) so they weren't "grey imports". I can't recall what other, if any, focal lengths were available.

They didn't exactly sell like hot cakes. They were very nicely finished, slightly less shiny than the regular MD range, but not a great deal cheaper than the MD family. Around the same time Canon introduced the confusingly-named "FL" range, presumably following the same flawed logic that people buying supposedly top class cameras would flock to save very little money buying a "second division" product. At the time we assumed they were made by someone else for Minolta and Canon but neither JapCams nor Canon would ever admit it.

[Excalibur]

***Canon introduced the confusingly-named "FL" range***

You've confused me as I thought fl lenses were before FD then later FDn after FD ?

[iangreenhalgh1]

[quote="scsambrook"]

[Oldhand]

[Excalibur]

[scsambrook]