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

Surprisingly good results from Minolta 135mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Surprisingly good results from Minolta 135mm Reply with quote
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. Very Happy


Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow, really nice samples Very Happy

This lens have it all, bokeh, sharpness, contrast Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No surprise.

Minolta made some very good lenses, and several cheap ones.

Yours is one.

Very good resolution of specular reflections.

Enjoy.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta lenses are selling for way under their value as an optic.
They are usually excellent.
Yours is superb - thanks for sharing
OH


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Surprised


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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! Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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! Wink Wink

Lloydy wrote:
And don't tell everyone about how good old Minolta glass is, I like good cheap glass! Wink


see, Dave agrees. ssh


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Konica and Minolta lenses are among the best to come out of Japan, so yes, they are very undervalued.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Surprisingly good results from Minolta 135mm Reply with quote
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. Very Happy


Nice. Is this lens a Sonnar formula? I find almost all 135 lenses seem to be producing good results, much like the 50mm's.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1