How Good are Minolta MD-series Lenses?

[Bandicoot]

I am admittedly not a scientist, physicist, engineer, or PROFESIONAL photographer. Despite my humble limitations, over the past decade and more of scrutinizing photos from Minolta lenses i've come to believe their image-making focus (ha ha ha!!!) was for *overall* imaging. I realize there can be a lot of re-touching done to boost/minimize aspects of an image, but i am thinking of pictures i have taken or those where i know little or no re-touching was performed.

By this, i mean to say that Minolta lens engineers seemingly chose not to single out one aspect of image making (such as a strict dedication to micro contrast) to the exclusion of other important facets of imaging such as color rendition, saturation, "warmth", etc. I believe, again in my amateur understanding, that Leica had a similar philosophy in the design of their lenses which may have initiated discussions and led to a short-lived partnership back in the day.

I'm a Pentax person, primarily, when it comes to 35mm SLRs, though I also have an old SRT101 and a couple of Rokkors. I want to second what you say above: there's a set of choices to make in designing a lens and, even with an unlimited budget, it can't excel in every area at once. I always felt that I liked the particular set of choices that Pentax designers made in these design trade-offs, going for overall pleasing images rather than just trying to get the most LPpmm or whatever for the sake of magazine tests. Sort of like the way supermarkets now boast that some of their vegetables are 'grown for flavour' I felt that Pentax lenses were 'designed for pictures'.

Like you, that's what I feel about the Minolta designs too. They and Pentax lenses don't have the same look, but both produce very 'pleasing' images, and I think are more like each other than either is like Nikon's or Canon's particular set of design choices, for example.

Most Rokkor lenses are capable of producing superb images - especially those of the Rokkor-X (MC or MD) vintage. It pays to know which are the "diamonds in the rough" exclusive of sample variation of a specific optical formula, but generally they are amazing - some more so than others.

This goes for everyone's lens lineup - but I'm not aware of any real dogs among the Rokkor primes, and there are some magnificent lenses.


Peter

 

[fmajor]

Sorry, didn't mean to exclude my Pentax colleagues!

Yes, Pentax really did "it" right - especially in the lens department. When the word "Takumar" is mentioned, the idea of superb images springs to my mind. If i hadn't been given a treasure trove of Minolta glass, i likely would have gone the Pentax Way (i was "schooled" using a K1000 - nice, nice, nice!!!).

frank

 

[FilmOnly]

Hi, folks,

I appreciate all of the responses. Well, I have finally made my Minolta purchase. Here it is:

XG-M body
Motor Drive 1
28/2.8 MC W Rokkor
45/2 MD Rokkor-X
50/1.7 MD Rokkor-X

I am very enthused about this gear, and am looking forward to using it. It should be here in a few days. I ended up parting with my Canon gear (AE-1P, etc.). I just could not get used to the bayonet style lens hoods. They do not give a secure feel. My Pentax screw-in hoods always feel secure...and I look forward to the same behavior with my MC and MD hoods. As far as I am aware, only the late MD lenses had clip-on style hoods--but even these would be better than those floppy Canon FD hoods.

One further issue: Do I need to use a camera battery in addition to those in the Motor Drive 1, or do the AA batteries in the drive suffice?

Thanks

 

[David Brown]

Do I need to use a camera battery in addition to those in the Motor Drive 1,

Yes

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, David...the LR44 battery, I suppose?--and it takes two of these, right?

 

[David Brown]

Thanks, David...the LR44 battery, I suppose?--and it takes two of these, right?

Yes.


Slightly off topic, but ...

I have an XG-1 from a friend that I am going to clean up, shoot a test roll, and then offer it for sale here on apug first. If everything checks out, of course. It has the 45mm f/2 lens, although I may offer a 50 or 55 from my "inventory" if a buyer prefers. Anyway, keep a look out in the classifieds and give me a while to run film through it.

 

[Marc Akemann]

In case you're interested and would like to see some really nice work taken with Minolta equipment, check out "Portraits of Earth" by Freeman Patterson. It's a beautifully done Sierra Club Book from 1987. In it FP mentions that he used a Minolta 35mm camera mounted on a tripod with a 28-85mm zoom or a 70-210mm zoom using either Kodachrome 25 or Fujichrome 100.

Since Minolta's Maxxum 7000 came out in 1985, I suppose he could have used autofocus equipment for the book.

Also, there are soft-cover versions of this book for sale with a Minolta sticker.

Anyway, it's a very nice book.

Marc

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I'm late to add to this discussion but thought I would share my experience with Minolta. I bought a SRT 101 back in 1968. I added a X370 and than a XE-1. I still have the SRT and XE-1. If you want a solid, smooth classic, I suggest the XE-7 which is similar to the much more expensive Leica R3.

Minolta did not take a back seat to anyone in the 60s and 70s. They applied a 2 layer coating on all their optics in the early 60s. Nikon coated their first lens around 1965. Coatings improved through the late 70s and are the best on the MD optics. Most of my lenses are Rokkor X as they blend excellent coatings with quality construction. MD mounts are small in circumference with more plastic.

I have tested a MC 35mm/F2.8 against a Contax G2 35mm/F2.8 and the Contax was better but not after F/5.6.

My MD Rokkor X 24mm/F2.8 is as good and probably better than any.

The MC 58mm/F1.2 has Leica like Bokeh and tests better than the Leica M mount 50mm/F1.4. In fact, most Minolta lenses are Leica like in regards to Bokeh. This is the lens to have for available light portraits. Its a cult classic.

My normal MC/MD 50mm/F1.7 is as good as a M-50mm Summicron of the same age except at the widest f stop.

My MC 28mm/F3.5 tested almost as well as a M-Hexanon 28mm/f2.8. The Hex was slightly crisper below f/5.6. You really had to look hard to see the difference. Tests were simple 4x6 color prints from the same film moved between camera bodies/optics.

I had a 85mm but it may have been a bad lens. I decided the 58mm was easier to hand hold in low light.

I had a 100mmf2.5 which I did not like (soft) and replaced it with a 135mm/f3.5 which is very crisp and light weight. It also has great Bokeh.

I would not buy Celtic glass as the Rokkor X lenses are so inexpensive and available. There is an advantage to buying the Rokkor X 55mm diameter lenses to standardize filters.

I think the performance of my 24, 28, 50mm 58mm and 135 equal or exceed C&N and Pentax. When I need better detail I shoot B&W medium format.

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, Marc...I appreciate the book recommendation. I am awaiting the arrival of my Minolta gear. It is supposed to arrive today.

 

[FilmOnly]

RJ:

I appreciate the detailed, helpful comments. I find it interesting that the lenses you mention are the exact ones I have been thinking of adding, as long as I am pleased with the XG-M and other items I have purchased.

The 24, 58, and 135 are very interesting. I have looked over the various aspects of the lenses, and I could not agree more with what you have stated in regard to the coatings/construction offfered by MD lenses and the 55mm filter thread compatibility. Having to worry about different filter sizes has always irritated me. I had planned to stick with Rokkor-X lenses. I could not get the 45/2 in a 55mm filter thread size, and so I had to make an exception in regard to that lens.

Which version of the 135/3.5 do you have?

Regards,
Glen

 

[viridari]

I have an inherited Minolta X-700 collecting dust (primarily shoot a Mamiya C330) and it would seem that I should probably be putting it to better use. It wasn't well cared for so I need to invest in a bunch of caps for the body & lenses, but there are apparently some real steals out there now on Minolta MD glass.

I don't know the right term, but the little rubber cup that goes over the viewfinder is missing. Not sure if this is crucial or if I'm just spoiled by the 6x6 Mamiya viewfinder, but I find it very difficult to focus with this camera. I do have normal 20/20 vision.

 

[Pompiere]

I don't think it was included originally. I purchased one separately, years ago, for my SR-T. I rarely use it, now that I am wearing eyeglasses.

 

[CGross]

Viridar, I have 2 body caps and a lens cap that will fit a 55mm lens. I would be more then happy to send you. Let me know. I have been cleaning up drawers and found them.

 

[john borrelli]

I guess I am somewhat of a dissenting opinion but I purchased many manual focus Minolta lenses and cameras. I recently sold the last of it on Ebay. The lenses have a low resale value and I lost a bit on every thing I sold. The good side of this is that you can buy Minolta cameras and some lenses for cheap which I also did, but the more desirable lenses will be about the same price as more desirable brands, like Nikon for example. There is a Minolta look. If you do the type of photography the Minolta look works for fine otherwise you would be better off with another system.

For example Minolta works well with portraiture in my opinion. It does not look good with Velvia slide film a tripod and higher contrast, modern landscape photography. Older Minolta lenses like the MC series are extremely well made but tend to be low contrast. The last MD series may be a little contrastier but are not nearly as well made mechanically. As I said the most desirable Minolta lenses tend to be about the same price as lenses from other more desirable manufacturers, I can't recommend a 24 mm Minolta lens or a Minolta macro lens over the Nikon equivalents for landscapes. Even for portraits I would rather have a Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIS lens over the Minolta equivalent but again that is just my opinion after using both systems, for what it is worth.

 

[John Koehrer]

Viadari,
You're looking for an "eyecup". They weren't included in the original camera box.
They're not needed for most use, but any light coming through the eyepiece will affect exposure.
If you find one it most likely will say "Minolta" on it & I don't remember if they were interchangeable
with other Minolta cameras.
Try Porter's or B&H for a generic.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

My brother has a Minolta system which is very good. Just as good as any system. Excellant photos.

Jeff

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Man, I have been shooting Minoltas for twenty years and posting on this thread for almost one year. I don't know of a 'Minolta' look. Certainly not one that is not conducive to landscape as that is primarily what I do, ESPECIALLY high contrast scenes. It's all about your exposure/processing/printing and the film you use.

The eye cup was not original but is still available. And one does get spoiled on a MF viewfinder as I have with my RB67, but after all of these years there's just something about a Minolta in my hands. I would always pick up a couple of extra bodies and a slew of lenses so that, over the past seven years, I have been able to outfit five friends with Minolta systems to get them going in film/non P&S photography. I gave the last one away over a year ago (sr-T101). I had been missing it so this last March I got a new (to me) XG-1 with three lenses and a tele-converter for under $100 (post incl) from sleeze-bay. I missed the feel of the cameras in my hands and now that I have, I have all but forsaken my 4x5, my RB67 and my Nikon N65 so that I can shoot Minolta all over again.

So, yeah! Get that thing out and burn some film in it. Lenses are a dime a dozen at aforementioned G. A. S. enabler as well as other system components. And yes, that's the reason why they are not selling for much anymore. So BUY, BUY, BUY.

 

[Vonder]

Very pleased with 50mm f1.4

I recently acquired a Minolta XG-7 in beautiful condition, but I bought it for the 50mm f1.4 lens that came with it. I am very pleased. This image was shot on Fuji Superia 100 film, 1/60th sec at f 2.8

I'm no bokeh expert, but this looks pretty nice to me. What do you think?

 

[Steve Smith]

I have posted this on another thread but I recently bought an XE-1 body (XE-7 in the US) and 50mm f1.2, 28mm f3.5 and 135mm f3.5 lenses.

I had intended to buy the same focal lengths in Nikkor lenses but I couldn't afford them. The Rokkor equivalents are a quarter to a third of the Nikkor price.

So far I have been very happy with them. Looking at the detail in the first 8x10 print I made, I could almost have convinced myself that I took it with a medium format camera.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


Steve.

 

[Fred De Van]

The X-700 is a decent camera. I would say the Minolta XD-11 is better, but unfortunately they are prone to electronic problems that are difficult to fix. The X-700 also has had problems with a capacitor, but it is very easily replaced. A common tactic was to find "broken" X-700 bodies on eBay for next to nothing, and then replace the $0.50 cent capacitor and resell for full price. Also if you can find an X-570 instead of an X-700, that is preferable.

I have been using Minoltas forneary 50 years and enjoyed a close relationship with the company right up to the end.

 

[jaimeb82]

I have a MD 50mm 1.7. After reading all this I entered the G.A.S mode, dammmm...I found a 135mm but seller says it doesn't say Rokkor on it? is that a lemon? the add says "Minolta 135mm f2.8"
Were there 2.8's made that are not Rokkor? Is the 2.8 better or worse than the 3.5?

 

[Fred De Van]

.000.
The X-700 is a decent camera. I would say the Minolta XD-11 is better, but unfortunately they are prone to electronic problems that are difficult to fix. The X-700 also has had problems with a capacitor, but it is very easily replaced. A common tactic was to find "broken" X-700 bodies on eBay for next to nothing, and then replace the $0.50 cent capacitor and resell for full price. Also if you can find an X-570 instead of an X-700, that is preferable.

I have been using Minolta cameras for nearly 50 years and enjoyed a close relationship with the company right up to the end. I should add here that my next door neighbor was a Vice Pres. at Nikon and my preference for Minolta was purey just that a cost-no-object choice of a working pro. I did and do have Nikon and Canon cameras at all times, but sedom use them. My standard 1980's kit was 2 XD-11, 2 XK-mot and 2 Leica M-2 or M-4 cameras. I used the XD-11's most and actually had 6 of them. I have 3 today. I normally put about a 100 rolls of Kodachrome or Fuji thru them a week. I have NEVER heard of electronic problems with this camera and in 30 years have Never had one fail.

The magnesium XD-11 is a far superior camera to the part plastic X-700 or X-570 and it can do many things neither of them can.

The best of the Minolta lenses are at least equal and often better than the offerings of others. These are also more expensive and harder to find used than the equivalent Nikon or Canon. Look at the 16mm 2.8, 17mm 4.0, 21mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 85mm 1.7, 100mm 2.0, 200mm 2.8. These are exceptional lenses.

16mm 2.8 Rokkor Minolta XK Kodachrome 64
​

21mm 2.8 Rokkor Minolta XD-11 Kodachrome 64​

 

[jaimeb82]

Are the CELTIC a lower quality lens? in general?

 

[David Brown]

Are the CELTIC a lower quality lens? in general?

Lower "build quality", but the same glass is what I've always heard. Sort of Minolta's "consumer" or budget line. However, if you find one in great shape and cheap, it's probably worth the $10.

 

[Vonder]

IThe magnesium XD-11 is a far superior camera to the part plastic X-700 or X-570 and it can do many things neither of them can.

Just curious, having two X-700's myself, as to what exactly the XD-11 can do that the X-700 can't? Can the XD-11 mount the MD-1 motor drive, or does it have one that can shoot at the MD-1's 3.5fps?

I'm sure many Minolta users would love to hear more about your relationship with Minolta. I'd personally love to know why they left the camera business and why their first DSLR took so long to come out.