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

[FilmOnly]

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]

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]

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

 

[lightdreamer]

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]

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

Jeff

 

[2F/2F]

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

 

[FilmOnly]

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]

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]

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

/Clay

 

[FilmOnly]

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]

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.