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
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
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.


Do you mean this one?:
http://www.minolta.suaudeau.eu/articles/articles.html

LucisPictor wrote:
Definitely the Rokkor 2/28.

The 28/2 is definitely one of the most interesting Rokkors, I love the field of view on APS-C (equiv. to 43mm)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can recommend my spring (or autumn) short holiday set (all late MC or early MD Rokkors with 55mm filter threads).

Rokkor MC/MD 24/2.8 or 28/2 MC/MD or 28/2.5 MC

Rokkor MC HH 35/1.8 or excellent and cheap 35/2.8 Rokkor MD

Rokkor MC PG 50/1.4 or MD Rokkor 50/1.4

Rokkor MC 85/1.7 or MD 85/2 - sometimes MC/MD 105/2.5 Rokkor with mfd of 1m instead (newer)

Rokkor MC 135/2.8 late 4 lenser or the same MD 135/2.8

Rokkor MC/MD 200/4

For special effects:

58/1.2 MC PG Rokkor or MD 50/1.2

For Macro

100/4 Rokkor or plain MD.50/3.5 is also very good save it's performance at f3.5

Zooms:

35-70/3.5 MD with macro or without

70-210/4 MD

There are more good Minolta MD lenses out there,but those are the ones I use more often.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
memetph wrote:
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.


Do you mean this one?:
http://www.minolta.suaudeau.eu/articles/articles.html

LucisPictor wrote:
Definitely the Rokkor 2/28.

The 28/2 is definitely one of the most interesting Rokkors, I love the field of view on APS-C (equiv. to 43mm)


Yes I mean this site.
You look like Che. Shocked


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you can read German here's one of the holy-grail Minolta sites collected by photographer from Switzerland, having most Minolta SR lenses listed with production dates/history, trivia, different versions and how to distinguish them, often comments about IQ and build and forum user quotes and sometimes even reviews.
Highly recommended!

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive

For Minolta AF lenses (many of them are optically identical to their manual counterparts) you can check the Dyxum database, nearly all lenses there have plenty of reviews and tons of sample pics. They have listest almost every of the 300+ lenses in Minolta AF mount.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb, better than the excellent 4/35-70 and 3.5-4.5/28-85 AF lenses, easily as good as the Canon L 24-105 and it only cost me 10.51ukp inc postage. A hell of a lot better built than Canon L lenses too.

In fact, I'm liking my Minolta AF zooms so much my next digicam might have to be a Sony SLR.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


This is the best comparison I could find:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm

In terms of sharpness, they seem equal wide open but the 50/1.2 is sharper when stopped down. The 58 has smoother bokeh.
I think the 58 is the better choice on APS-C (equiv. to 89mm, smoother bokeh) while the 50 is a better general purpose lens on FF.

As far as I know, the 58 (like the 85/1.7) has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberrations that give it a smoother background bokeh.

I haven't tried my 58 on a MILC yet (I have an X-e1 on the way) but it has an added benefit on my old Minolta XD:
With a 58mm lens the viewfinder magnification is 1.00x (0.87*58/50)


memetph wrote:
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?

Minoltas AF lenses use the Minolta/Sony A mount (like the current Sony SLTs), you can adapt them just like the MC/MD lenses and the adapters are actually a bit more common. I don't know if the AF would work with Sony's adapters, the MF versions will be easier to focus manually.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In its comparison test on Rokkors standard lenses, Mr Suaudeau gives high marks to the 58mm 1.2 wide open. In general, it seems better at close subjects than at landscapes. Apparently a portrait lens.
As allrounders the MC 50 1.4 PG and the MD 50 2 receive the best marks. This seems to be conform to the opinions on this forum.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


I've got the MF version lying around here, the long minimum focus distance is a bit annoying (the macro mode only works at 105mm) but I've always liked the results.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


This is the best comparison I could find:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm

In terms of sharpness, they seem equal wide open but the 50/1.2 is sharper when stopped down. The 58 has smoother bokeh.
I think the 58 is the better choice on APS-C (equiv. to 89mm, smoother bokeh) while the 50 is a better general purpose lens on FF.

As far as I know, the 58 (like the 85/1.7) has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberrations that give it a smoother background bokeh.

I haven't tried my 58 on a MILC yet (I have an X-e1 on the way) but it has an added benefit on my old Minolta XD:
With a 58mm lens the viewfinder magnification is 1.00x (0.87*58/50)


memetph wrote:
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?

Minoltas AF lenses use the Minolta/Sony A mount (like the current Sony SLTs), you can adapt them just like the MC/MD lenses and the adapters are actually a bit more common. I don't know if the AF would work with Sony's adapters, the MF versions will be easier to focus manually.


Two little additions:
-Yes the AF of all the Minolta AF lenses works perfectly with the original (and expensive) Sony LAEA4-Adapter, there are also cheaper manual adapters for AF-mount lenses but most cheaper AF lenses are not nice to use with MF. To use the Minolta MD/MC lenses on Sony A7 you do only need such an cheap E-Mount - SR Mount adapter Click here to see on Ebay.de

-I heard that the 50/1.2 is also contrastier at all apertures and has less distortion. Though as said most prefer the 58/1.2 due smoother bokeh wide open anyway.

woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


I also have it, it's very decent for a zoom indeed, especially on APS-C.
The 28-135mm is even more fantastic as far as I know.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:



PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:

Looks like condensation on the back of the front lens. Shouldn't be too difficult to clean.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens. But please do not talk about it. we dont want the secret getting out


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Looks like condensation on the back of the front lens. Shouldn't be too difficult to clean.

I wish, it's the result of fungus eating it's way into the front surface of the front element. I removed the front element and spent the better part of two hours trying to get that stain off.
What you see in the picture isn't on the glass, it's etched into the glass by the acid that the fungus excreted.

Here's the result:

The 85/1.7, shot with my 58/1.2 @ f/1.2


My 58/1.2 shot with the 85/1.7 @ f/1.7


Stopping down only lowers the contrast further.

At f/4:


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens. But please do not talk about it. we dont want the secret getting out


What's the famous handshake lens?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_28_135mmid56.html

Thats the handshake lens very very good still goes for over £250


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers, not one I see for auction often,usually listed Buy it Now for high prices.

Why is it called 'handshake' BTW?

I wonder if it's related to the Tokina AT-X 28-135 which I have in the guise of a Konica Zoom-Hexanon and it is truly excellent, perhaps the best zoom I've ever tried but it is a big heavy beast.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've never been much of a Minolta user, although I do have a decent respect for their lens and camera quality -- especially from the MC and early MD days. In an earlier life as a camera dealer, however, I owned two stand-outs: the MC 16mm f/2.8 full frame fisheye and the MD 100-500mm f/8 zoom.

The 16mm fisheye was a remarkable lens. I wish I would have taken more pics with it than I did. It was inventory, though, and as I recall, I ended up selling the lens before I got the pics back from the lab. And they were wild! The lens had a set of built-in filters, too -- built-in being just about the only way you could go with a 16mm fisheye.



The 100-500mm f/8 zoom I was attracted to just because of its focal range. As far as sharpness goes, at 500mm, it was just okay. But it was a cool looking lens:



It needs a ruler put next to it. As I dimly recall, it was about 15" long. I shot a few slides with it, but I was shooting freehand and only a couple came out without camera shake. But those two showed that it was unremarkable optically.

Some folks here are most likely aware of the Joseph D. Cooper handbooks for Nikon. He also wrote one for Minolta. I have a copy of both the Nikon and Minolta System Handbooks (each is a two-book set). Mine show copyright dates of 1972, 1973 by Joseph D. Cooper and 1976 by the American Book Publishing Company. So it has all the MC lenses of that era, including the optical diagrams.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:



The damage might be mitigated through polishing.
I'd ask here about options.
http://www.focalpointlens.com/fp_intro.html


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens.


the 35-105 is a very good lens... the 4-4.5/28-135 is better. Actually the 28-135 is even better than some Minolta G lenses like the Minolta AF 2.8/28-70 G, especially on a FF camera like the Sony A900 or A7. 1985 when introduced their price was on the same level and much higher than what was asked for a 35-105 (which is still a little gem).


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I wonder if it's related to the Tokina AT-X 28-135


I don't think it's related to the Tokina, but I'm not familar with this one.. here you can find the specs for the Minolta:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens/af28-135f4

and this may help too:



PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks to all for your input !


Now... one of two things...
Prices will rise on most of the selected ones
and/or i'll be ruined....


PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yup, I started collecting Minolta AF lenses last year while they can still be had cheap.

I've got 6 rolls of film shot with the 3.5-4.5/35-105 and 3.5-4.5/28-85 to develop now,I'll be sure to post samples.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4