Any Opinions on the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5?

FilmOnly · Mar 12, 2011

I have both Nikon and Minolta gear. I have been mostly disappointed in the Nikon 300/4.5 AI. I do not know how to describe it, but the lens gives an odd appearance or character in the shots I have taken with it. Thus, how good is the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5? I welcome any relevant comments in regard to its performance and such.

Clay2 · Mar 12, 2011

I just picked this lens up at a camera show last weekend. Came with end caps and Minolta round case.
Takes a 72mm filter and has built-in lens shade. Will be testing it this week on my two SR-T101's, and
my X370N. Will let you know the results.
Best regards,
/Clay

FilmOnly · Mar 12, 2011

Thanks, Clay...I will look for your comments.

lightdreamer · Mar 12, 2011

Hi FilmOnly,

I do not own the MD Rokkor, but the older MC Rokkor 1:4.5 300m. The MC is a different construction and therefore it is not really comparable.
But nevertheless I want to share my findings for the MC.

The MC lens draws somewhat soft (especialy less contrast) wide open, but sharpens up very nicely at f5.6. I would rate it razor sharp here.
Chromatic aberations become visible slightly under special circumstances. Here it becomes visible that it is not a APO lens. In sum it is a very
capable lens and has served me very well.

BG lightdreamer

Jeff Kubach · Mar 12, 2011

My brother has one and has like it very much, if that means anything.

Jeff

2F/2F · Mar 12, 2011

The Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AI is a good performer. What shutter speeds are you shooting it at?

FilmOnly · Mar 13, 2011

2F/2F: I would never shoot hand-held with a large, heavy lens. In fact, about 90 percent of all of my shots are taken on a carbon fiber tripod. I shoot the 300/4.5 on this tripod, and usually use a remote cord, too. Since I shoot moving subjects (both slower and faster), I shoot at 1/125th and above (1/500th or higher for faster subjects). The Nikon 300 has yet to produce a sharp, accurate, pleasing photo. In fact, I do not know how to describe the photos taken with this lens. They do not look like out-of-focus snapshots taken by a novice. The just look odd.

2F/2F · Mar 13, 2011

Do you have any examples?

The advantage of the 4.5 over the 2.8 is that it is actually pretty small and light, and can easily be shot hand held.

Clay2 · Mar 13, 2011

Oops, my mistake, Mine is also the MC not the MD version.

/Clay

FilmOnly · Mar 13, 2011

I am sorry, but I cannot supply any examples (no scanner, etc.).

I think I have figured out how to describe what I see in my photos shot with the 300/4.5. These shots have a certain "shiny" appearance, whereas my other lenses (including the 200/4), give a more "matte" look. I guess one could call this "shiny" appearance contrast. However, it does not look at all realistic or lifelike. For example, tree branches in photos shot with the 300/4.5 look "shiny." In reality, these branches have a more "matte"--if not dull--look. The same trees shot with my AI'd 200/4 (and with a few other lenses, too) look "matte," as in reality.

2F/2F · Mar 13, 2011

Do you have any sort of digital camera that you can use to photograph a few of your prints for us? I really am not understanding your description, and I am surprised that this lens is giving you any issues, unless it has been knocked out of whack or something in the past.

Any Opinions on the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency