View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
metalhund
Joined: 04 Sep 2012 Posts: 42
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:39 pm Post subject: Surprisingly good results from Minolta 135mm |
|
|
metalhund wrote:
I took my Minolta MD Rokkor F3.5 tele out on a test, without great expectations.
But it turned out that it was also possible to get good results from a "budget" lens.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
wow, really nice samples
This lens have it all, bokeh, sharpness, contrast _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
No surprise.
Minolta made some very good lenses, and several cheap ones.
Yours is one.
Very good resolution of specular reflections.
Enjoy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excellent results.
I'm not surprised, Minolta lenses are excellent. I can highly recommend the 1.7/50 and 3.5/28, both are among the best in their class imho. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6000 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Minolta lenses are selling for way under their value as an optic.
They are usually excellent.
Yours is superb - thanks for sharing
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
Minolta lenses are selling for way under their value as an optic.
They are usually excellent.
Yours is superb - thanks for sharing
OH |
My impression is that both Konica and Minolta lenses is selling under value. I have no experience with any of them (AR/SR mount lenses), but I always see very good samples of most of their preset lenses made _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7788 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I had the 135 / 2.8 but it was fungused beyond using, a write off. So I bought a 3.5 when I saw one going cheap, used it a few times and liked it. Then I bought another 2.8, thinking it must be better than the 3.5. Sadly, it isn't; the slower 3.5 has a lot more contrast, and I swear it's sharper.
great pictures, it's a lovely lens. And don't tell everyone about how good old Minolta glass is, I like good cheap glass! _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Excellent results.
I'm not surprised, Minolta lenses are excellent. I can highly recommend the 1.7/50 and 3.5/28, both are among the best in their class imho. |
I have both and yes they are great!
Oldhand wrote: |
Minolta lenses are selling for way under their value as an optic.
They are usually excellent.
Yours is superb - thanks for sharing
OH |
shhh, talk like that puts £££'s on the price. I'm getting mine cheap while nobody knows!
Lloydy wrote: |
And don't tell everyone about how good old Minolta glass is, I like good cheap glass! |
see, Dave agrees. ssh _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Konica and Minolta lenses are among the best to come out of Japan, so yes, they are very undervalued. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 488 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Konica and Minolta lenses are among the best to come out of Japan, so yes, they are very undervalued. |
That's true. There are bucket loads of them here in Japan, and they are very cheap.
A guide to inspecting and buying them:
- If you find a Konica with any haze, don't buy it. They are almost impossible to clean. It think it's the evaporated grease that reacts with the coatings.
- Fungus on Minolta lenses. Check this carefully, but a lot of MC Rokkors are not too hard to clean. They are built in a traditional way, so you have access to each lens element to clean them. The coatings are not as easily damaged by fungus as some other brands. (for example, older Nikons) However, the older MC Rokkors such as the 58mm F1.4 need to be checked carefully for haze. This is often patchy, and if it is, it can't be removed.
I tend to steer clear of the newest MD lenses with fungus. The lens element groups have an external plastic molding which makes it impossible to separate the lens elements, so you cannot clean them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
The coated of the mc rokkors should be soft and can be damaged easily, at least in the mc pg 1,4/50.
Agree with the very good IQ of minolta and konica lenses, and yet are cheap enough to keep buying them.
The only dissapoint is eith the mc 3,5/28 and md 2,8/28.
The first very prone to flare and not so sharp like the 20, 24 or 35.
I think that 28 mm is not the best fl of minolta. Only the 2/28 is a decent one
Of course, it is only my experience with rokkor lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6000 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote: |
The coated of the mc rokkors should be soft and can be damaged easily, at least in the mc pg 1,4/50.
Agree with the very good IQ of minolta and konica lenses, and yet are cheap enough to keep buying them.
The only dissapoint is eith the mc 3,5/28 and md 2,8/28.
The first very prone to flare and not so sharp like the 20, 24 or 35.
I think that 28 mm is not the best fl of minolta. Only the 2/28 is a decent one
Of course, it is only my experience with rokkor lenses. |
What about the 28mm f2.5, How would you rate that please Dr Juan?
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7788 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
dnas wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Konica and Minolta lenses are among the best to come out of Japan, so yes, they are very undervalued. |
That's true. There are bucket loads of them here in Japan, and they are very cheap.
A guide to inspecting and buying them:
- If you find a Konica with any haze, don't buy it. They are almost impossible to clean. It think it's the evaporated grease that reacts with the coatings.
- Fungus on Minolta lenses. Check this carefully, but a lot of MC Rokkors are not too hard to clean. They are built in a traditional way, so you have access to each lens element to clean them. The coatings are not as easily damaged by fungus as some other brands. (for example, older Nikons) However, the older MC Rokkors such as the 58mm F1.4 need to be checked carefully for haze. This is often patchy, and if it is, it can't be removed.
I tend to steer clear of the newest MD lenses with fungus. The lens element groups have an external plastic molding which makes it impossible to separate the lens elements, so you cannot clean them. |
The 135 / 2.8 that I had with bad fungus was so bad the element was etched deeply, and right across both sides. It was the very rear element which was bonded into a plastic mount. Every other bit of glass was spotless, and the lens was just about mint cosmetically.
Luckily the lens came in a job lot so I hadn't bought it specifically, but it was very easy to spot the damage. I did take some pictures with it but they were useless. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
DR.JUAN wrote: |
The coated of the mc rokkors should be soft and can be damaged easily, at least in the mc pg 1,4/50.
Agree with the very good IQ of minolta and konica lenses, and yet are cheap enough to keep buying them.
The only dissapoint is eith the mc 3,5/28 and md 2,8/28.
The first very prone to flare and not so sharp like the 20, 24 or 35.
I think that 28 mm is not the best fl of minolta. Only the 2/28 is a decent one
Of course, it is only my experience with rokkor lenses. |
What about the 28mm f2.5, How would you rate that please Dr Juan?
OH |
I have to repeat, don't like the fl of 28 mm so much.
The 2,5/28 is not the exception. Very prone to flare and no sharp like other rokkors.
Was replaced near 1965 by the 2,8/28 with 7/7 formula..
I should look for konica 28/3,5 7 elements. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
DR.JUAN wrote: |
The coated of the mc rokkors should be soft and can be damaged easily, at least in the mc pg 1,4/50.
Agree with the very good IQ of minolta and konica lenses, and yet are cheap enough to keep buying them.
The only dissapoint is eith the mc 3,5/28 and md 2,8/28.
The first very prone to flare and not so sharp like the 20, 24 or 35.
I think that 28 mm is not the best fl of minolta. Only the 2/28 is a decent one
Of course, it is only my experience with rokkor lenses. |
What about the 28mm f2.5, How would you rate that please Dr Juan?
OH |
I have to repeat, don't like the fl of 28 mm so much.
The 2,5/28 is not the exception. Very prone to flare and no sharp like other rokkors.
Was replaced near 1965 by the 2,8/28 with 7/7 formula..
I should look for konica 28/3,5 7 elements. |
I think it's a great and under rated lens, love mine.
_________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wuxiekeji
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Posts: 213
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Surprisingly good results from Minolta 135mm |
|
|
wuxiekeji wrote:
metalhund wrote: |
I took my Minolta MD Rokkor F3.5 tele out on a test, without great expectations.
But it turned out that it was also possible to get good results from a "budget" lens. |
Nice. Is this lens a Sonnar formula? I find almost all 135 lenses seem to be producing good results, much like the 50mm's. _________________ Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 60D | Canon EOS-M | Voigtlander Nokton 1.4/35 | Zeiss Distagon C-Y 4/18 | Zeiss Distagon ZF 2/28 | Samyang 1.4/35 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/50 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/85 | Zeiss Makro-Planar C-Y 2.8/100 | Zeiss Sonnar C-Y 2.8/135 | Nikkor ED Ai-S 2.8/180 | Canon FD SSC Fluorite 2.8/300 | Tair-3S 4.5/300 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalhund
Joined: 04 Sep 2012 Posts: 42
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
metalhund wrote:
Thank you for the kind response
Quote: |
Nice. Is this lens a Sonnar formula? I find almost all 135 lenses seem to be producing good results, much like the 50mm's. |
I am sorry - I dont know.
Almost all 135 lenses I've tried is from ok to good. I have a Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 which I'm very happy with. A Soligor which is ok. The used Minolta and another Minolta Rokkor-X 3.5, which I have not tried yet.
And then my last purchase, a Pentax pk 135 2.5 which I also have not have used yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|