Minolta's best

[Mir]

Lets say one wants to gather and collect the best lenses from Minolta and make a nice set of lenses for himself.
Lets say 5 or 6 lenses.

Lets not get in never ending stiff-necked arguments, but rather do like fellow member forenSeil did in another post.
Be precise on the exact version, if many versions exist and support your say by disclosing your sources and references.

And i'll take the liberty of quoting fellow member ForenSeil to start this thread...

[Attila]

I have a few Minolta what I like really, 100mm PF 2.0, Minolta latest MD 20mm, 24mm 35mm 1.8 ,50mm f1.2 I didn't like much several earlier ones, probably all good enough to anyone

[ForenSeil]

I'm a big Minolta fan!
Minolta was a top maker like Nikon, Zeiss or Leitz etc.

Minolta 24/2.8 (all except latest MD version with 49mm filter screwmount and without "Rokkor" which is nothing special) - very sharp and very nice colors. The other wide angle Minoltas are generally also very good.

Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 (Leica M) - light and tiny but very sharp lens, similar to Leica Elmar-C 90/4

Minolta 58/1.2 and 50/1.2 - both awesome!

Minolta MD 50/2 - Pssssst... like the Minolta 135/2.8 often underrated but optically imho one of the very best manual 50ies around, best CA control ever, decent sharpness wide open and ultra sharp stopped down, finest Minolta colors, imho better than 50/1.4 and even a little better than the 50/1.7. I once made a direct comparision on NEX-5N between the MD 50/2, the MD 50/1.4, Hexanon 5X/1.4;5X/1.7;5X1.8, Carl Zeiss HFT Planar 50/1.8 and -believe it or not - the MD 50/2 was better @F2 than all other @F2 - the best is - it can be had for less than 20€. Only drawback ist that it's partiall made of plastic.
EDIT: There are at least 3 optically different Minolta 50/2, I think I'm refering about the latest 1981< one.

Minolta MD 200/2.8 and 200/4 - Psssst.... two more lesser known but optically awesome gemstones, both designs containing finest ED glass.

Minolta MC/MD 50/1.4 - Very good, one of the very best 50/1.4's you can get in the league for less then 100€. The MD was my most used lens for a long time, but I don't like to use mine anymore since I have FF, as sweet spot wide open and F2 is very tiny. But works nice on APS-C. The MC 50/1.4 PG is said to be best of them, though all are very good.
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-rokkor-50mm-f1-4-t49267,highlight,%2Bminolta.html

Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 (Leica M) - slightly nervous bokeh wide open but except that an optically outstanding lens, tiny as a thimble, even with adapter. Often sold in bundle with very nice Minolta CLE rangefinder. Optically it's identical with Leica Summicron-C 40/2 I think.

Minolta 100/2 - often very expensive but rated to be one of the best and sharpest potrait lenses ever

Minolta 135/2.8 STF - expensive but unique, very sharp and bokeh is so smooth that it becomes weird!

Minolta 16/2.8 Fisheye - a very good fisheye, also to modern standards, design ist practically unchanged still in production (now by Sony) since the 60ies, so good that also even Leitz bought license from Minolta

Minolta 500/8 Mirror - Expensive but one of the very best mirror lenses. Latest version should be optically identical with Leica Mirror Telyt and Sony AF Mirror as far as I know (http://tinyurl.com/nbfxvft)

Minolta MD 250/5.6 Mirror - As small as a normal 50/1.4 lens and very good IQ. Fetches usually ultra high prices on Ebay due rarity and demand in asia.

Minolta 35-70/3.5 Macro - Best zoom lens at it's times and still very good today (it's still able to beat several modern Zeiss zooms like the 1k€ Zeiss FE Tessar 24-70 in some excercises!), it's optically identical with more expensive Leica R 35-70/3.5. Can be had for 40€ or something like that.

Minolta MD 70-200/4 - Well kown, very good reputations, optically identical to the later AF version

Minolta 75-200/4.5 - Pssst.... less known but was the very best zoom in it's range when it was released in 1978 until it was topped first by Nikon and than a little later massivly by Leitz Vario-Elmar-R 80-200/4.5... it did cost 1250DM (nearly 1400€) and has an complex (expensive) 15/11 design. Lens was not very succesful due price, the more common successor MD/AF 70-200/4 was very good aswell and did cost a fraction. Today the 75-200 is often much cheaper because it's less known but it's actually not inferior.

Minolta Macros - All Minolta macros primes (100/4, 100/3.5, 100/2.8 and the 50mm) are very sharp lenses at close up range, also to modern standards. But especially the 50mm is slightly inferior at infinity to modern macro primes, and the at least the 100/4 is not colors corrected for Minolta standards, so these are not perfect lenses for general purposes, they are good macro workhorses only.

And of course all Minolta G APO primes - made under highest standards for professional use, quite expensive but also still top of the top of the notch, in the same class as Leica- or Zeiss Apo lenses

[lukias]

http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

Based on that you'd be forgiven for thinking the previous 3 versions were the same also... specs basically identical... even the celtics.

As far as respected, obtainable and lightweight I'd say MD 20mm 2.8, 24mm Rokkor(late MC), MD 35mm 1.8, MD 50mm 1,4(55mm), 85mm F2. Naturally people will mention 58mm 1.2, 100mm F2, 135mm F2... but hardly easily sourced or cheap.

[Lightshow]

I won't be selling my MC 28/2.5 or 58/1.2 ever.
I have the 50/1.8 & 85/2.8 in LTM en route to me.
The MC 50/1.4 & 24/2.8 are on my list to get.

[Tedat]

Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF: my favorite lens of all.. nothing can create a smoother bokeh

Minolta AF 2/100mm: probably my sharpest lens

Minolta AF 1.4/85mm G: the reason why I'm not even looking for something like a Zeiss Planar 1.4/85

Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO G HS: best Tele I ever owned

Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm: the Zoom which should be labeled "G".. exceptional!

[memetph]

I started buying Rokkors two weeks ago. They are cheaper than M42 , PK, FD here in PL.
MC 50/1.4 PG 45 euros, MC 28/3.5 SG 35 euros, MD 45/2 20 euros, MD 75/200 4.5 22euros. All in very good condition.
I had no time to make extensive tests but I am happy with the first shots.
The zoom is an impressive piece of optic and it is mint.
There are some very good opinions about it especially in Germany and also more critical. I hope that unsere Freunde are right.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Rokkor-SG 3.5/28 is an amazing lens, probably the best 28 I've ever found, it has 7 elements unlike the later version that has only 5

Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 and MD 1.7/50 both among the best 50s available, don't believe the nonsense about the 2/50 being better, there is nothing to choose between them

MD 2/45 pancake, very underrated, has wonderful colours and character, the 1.7/50 is a tiny bit sharper but the 2/45 has a character all it's own that I really like

3.5-4.5/28-85 superb lens, better than the more hyped 4/35-70

[vlousada]

Minolta lenses are very good..
I have several and still looking to add some more.
The best I have tried so far are:
- Rokkor 1.2/58mm
- Rokkor 2.0/100mm
- Rokkor 1.8/35mm
- Rokkor 1.7/85mm

All them are highly recommended.

Like you, also I am putting effort to collect 6-7 TOP Minolta lenses...
So, I am looking after:
1) Rokkor 2.0/135mm
2) Rokkor 1.2/50mm
3) Rokkor 2.8/24mm

[Aanything]

I've had some minoltas, both sr and af, the ones I remember as outstanding for various reasons are:

MC Rokkor PG 1.4/50
MD Rokkor 1.7/50 (and AF 1.7/50, i suspect they are more or less the same)
MC Tele Rokkor QD 2.8/135
the 35/70 zoom, both the MC/MD version and the AF "mini beercan" one
AF 70/210 f4 "beercan"
the recently acquired MC Rokkor SI 2.5/28, which is quickly becoming one of my favourites, because of a great mix of technical qualities and character.
MC Rokkor PF 85/1.7

I need to add that the second MC line is one of my favourite series ever in terms of feel/build quality.

[Basilisk]

I found a lovely rokkor MC 100mm f2.5, not as sought after as the f2, but a very nice performer (only tested on crop so far). Seems a bit of an oddity, but probably worth getting if the price is right. Not many for sale.

[woodrim]

I've used Minolta since 1973, yet I've had very few Minolta lenses, mainly because I couldn't afford them back then. I was fortunate to get the MC 1.4/50 PG with my first camera and I still love the lens. I believe from what I have read, it's highly regarded among the 50s.

The 2.8/135 four element actually includes the MC version right before the MD. Some folks at this German site have done a good job helping to identify the lenses: http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive

From what I have read, but not personal experience, the 2/100 seems a highly regarded lens. Same for the 24mm. So far, these are all Rokkors. I think there was a little slip when the dropped the Rokkor label, but why I don't know. However, some zooms were very good too, as far as zooms go. The only AF and only zoom I use is the Minolta 35-105 (second version) and it amazes me every time.

[aoleg]

Rokkor 50/1.4 (all versions are great, I believe there were 4 or 5 of them). One of the best fast fifties. Better than SMC Takumar 50/1.4.

Rokkor 85/2. The sharpest 85mm f/2 lens I ever seen. Sharp, sharp, sharp! Very compact, too, and great flare resistance. If you were to say negative things about this lens, they would be the plastic aperture control ring, and maybe slightly harsh background rendering (mind you, not harsh harsh, but compared to 85/1.7...) These still go for peanuts. MD 85/2 is an undiscovered gem.

Rokkor 85/1.7. Unfortunately, they are well known, so their prices are high. Other than that, great creamy bokeh, natural contrast and nice colors. I prefer this lens when shooting portraits under strong sunlight.

Rokkor MD 100/2.5. I can only vouch for MD version because the older MC (which is, by the way, a different optical construction) is much more difficult to convert to EOS. Anyway; the MD 100/2.5 is a great portrait lens, with a more gentle rendering compared to Nikkor AIS 105/2.5.

Rokkor MD (and late MC) 135/2.8 with 55mm filter ring. In other words, the version with 4 lens in 4 groups construction (Minolta had 3 different 135/2.8's; the 4/4 is the best of them, sharpness wise). Some prefer the earlier MC version for its smoother bokeh, but again, the MD lens is much easier to convert to EOS, so I only have experience with MD.

There are definitely many other gems in the Rokkor lineup, but as I'm using mine on Canon 5Dmk2, converting wide-angles with floating elements is a no-no. So there we go, with standard lenses and mid-teles.

[Lloydy]

28 / 3.5, I like a lot.
45 / 2, very good, but close to the 50's so I don't use it much.
50 / 1.4, just about my favorite lens
50 / 1.7, lovely lens, but I reach for the 1.4
100 / 2.5 Superb lens, I love everything about this lens.
100 / 3.5 Macro, it's a big heavy thing, but sharp - very sharp.
135 / 2.8 Another favorite,
135 / 3.5 Some say this is the sharper 135? maybe it is, it's another very good lens.
35-70 / 3.5 Macro, don't leave home without it

I got into Minolta's very late, I was always a Canon + Pentax man, I wish I'd discovered Minolta a long time ago.

[dnas]

Two lenses that I own, that stand out, even above the MC/MD Rokkor 50mm F1.4 lenses, and many other great Minolta MC & MC Rokkors:

Minolta MD 85mm F2

Minolta MD 100mm F4 Macro

[Boris_Akunin]

As far as I could gather, these are the most interesting Minolta primes (my personal favourites are bolded):

-MC/MD 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (both the 11/8 and the 10/7 version)
-MC/MD 17mm f/4
-MD 20mm f/2.8 (not as good as the MC21 but much smaller)
-MC 21mm f/2.8
-MC/MD 24mm f/2.8 (the 9/7 version, the late MD 8/8 version is worse but still quite good, the VFC version may be better)
-MC/MD 28mm f/2 (the 10/9 version, the late MD 9/9 version seems to be worse) EDIT: Actually it seems to be the other way around if the tests at artaphot.ch are to be believed!
-MC/MD 35mm f/1.8 (the MC and early MD version, the late MD version seems to be a bit worse)
-MC/MD 50mm f/1.4 (The MC "Rokkor-PG" version seems to be the best for Bokeh and wide open sharpness, the late MD version is slightly sharper when stopped down)
-MD 50mm f/1.2
-MC 58mm f/1.4
-MC 58mm f/1.2
-MC 85mm f/1.7
-MD 85mm f/2
-MD 100mm f/2.5 (the late, plain MD version)
-MC/MD 135mm f/2.8 (the 4/4 version)
-MD 135mm f/2
-MC/MD 200mm f/4 (the late MC and early MD version, the lighter and smaller late MD version is worse)
-MD 200mm f/2.8

Some are very rare and probably too expensive (16/2.8, 21/2.8, 135/2 ),
some are affordable though not cheap (24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/1.2, 58/1.2, 85/1.7, 85/2, 200/2.8 )
and some can often be had for great prices (50/1.4, 100/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/4 )
There are other, less 'special' lenses that are still quite good and often dirt cheap (i.e. 35/2.8, 50/1.7 )

The 28/2 and 35/1.8 make great normal lenses on APS-C, the 35/1.8 is a bit sharper but it's a matter of choice.
The f/1.2's (50 & 58 ) make great portrait lenses on APS-C, the 50/1.2 is probably the better choice as a general purpouse lens on FF cameras.
The 85/1.7 is a great portrait lens on FF cameras, on APS-C the 85/2 may be the better choice (sharper across the frame).

I have collected a few (24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 58/1.2, 100/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/4 and a 85/1.7 is on the way) and I am very satisfied with all of them.

If the money isn't too tight, I'd suggest looking for these:
21/2.8 or 24/2.8
28/2 or 35/1.8
50/1.2 or 58/1.2
85/2 or 85/1.7
135/2.8 or 135/2
200/4 or 200/2.8

For small budgets these are the ones to look for:
35/2.8 or 28/2.8
50/1.4 ("MC Rokkor-PG") or 50/1.7
100/2.5 (the 'plain MD' version)
135/2.8 (the 4/4 version)
200/4 (the heavier version)

Daniels list (http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/) helps with identifying the different versions.

You may be able to find the more expensive lenses at good prices, sometimes the sellers have no idea what they have...
(I paid 39€ for my 58/1,2 and 25€ for my 35/1.8)


regards
Jan


more sources:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive
http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas

[Layer-cake]

with all the good words forinseil has put in about the MD 50mm F2 I managed to find one today for cheap and I have to admit it is a nice lens to use, I always discounted it due to its speed but it seems much nicer than than 1.7 I had:)

[Boris_Akunin]

[ForenSeil]

[Boris_Akunin]

[woodrim]

I don't understand the rational (or maybe just don't agree) of making wide open comparisons of different speed lenses. Certainly before I made a judgement between any of them, I'd want to know how they compared at the first common aperture. Is the f/2 better at f/2 than a 1.4 version is at f/2?

The link to the comparison of 1.4/50 MC and MD lenses seems to be splitting hairs. I can't imagine there being a perceivable difference in regular use. I'm more than happy with my 1.4/50 MC PG. I use it because I love it, and I love it when I use it.

[ForenSeil]

[Boris_Akunin]

[memetph]

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.

[LucisPictor]

Definitely the Rokkor 2/28.