How Good are Minolta MD-series Lenses?

[Cork]

OK, can I do a quick pipe in here as well and ask some questions.

I am looking at expanding my ROKKOR range and probably am looking at getting the following (in time of course and as money permits. I have a 50 1.4 and a 50 2) - 24 F2.8, 35 F2.8, 85 F1.7 (maybe,well...), 135 F2.8 and some form of 300.

In regards to the 300, what are the key ones to look for?

I have the MD Rokkor-X 300mm f/4.5; for a non-APO telephoto it's a pretty fair lens. Relatively light for the focal length.

BTW, if you are seeking a great portrait lens the 100mm f/2.5 and the 85mm f/2 are very nice. I have copies of both; my 100mm is more balanced from center to edge while the 85mm is sharper in the center and softer on the edge. As a result I tend to prefer the 100mm for tight shots.

Cork

 

[Marvin]

I think the MC and MD lenses were great and I have many of them. Just bought a set of MD Vivitar extension tubes and looking forward to photographing the Honeybees. I have 2 X700s and a X370 bodies and 28 f3.5, 28 f2.8, 35 f28, 50 f1.7, 50 f1.4 85 f1.7, 135 f2.8, and some other sigmas and vivitars. I have Nikon film and digital cameras but still like my old minoltas.

 

[hoffy]

OK, time to ask another question, but this time its a MC lens question. How good is the 24mm F2.8 MC lens (not the VFC). How does it rate to the MD variant?

Cheers

 

[sgluck]

I have almost every Minolta lens from the Auto Rokkor series, MC Rokkor, and MD rokkors. By "every Lens" I mean everything from 21mm to 500mm with the 50mm macro and the 100mm bellows. They have never let me down and my owning Minoltas goes back to 1965. I am currently thinking of purchasing a Sony a850 simply because I want to keep and use my Minolta AF lenses. I have only had one mishap with my Minolta MF bodies in the field and thats when my XE-7 had its on and off switch go out. My SR-1 back up body kept right on ticking. Not bad for almost 50 years of using Minolta products.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Sgluck - that's a great user report! I always found it odd how many seemed to "pooh-pooh" Minolta bodies and lenses in favor if Canikon. Goes to show you what good marketing does, I guess! Too bad Minolta never really figured that out, otherwise they might have had a very different future.

Jed

 

[Dervish]

I've found a MD Zoom 35-70mm F3.5 (constant aperture) with macro mode. Is it any good?

 

[ath]

I've found a MD Zoom 35-70mm F3.5 (constant aperture) with macro mode. Is it any good?

YEEEEESSSSS!

 

[Cork]

If you don't mind the rather limited zoom range, the lens itself is excellent. Co-designed with Leitz, I believe.

 

[magkelly]

I've just read pretty much the whole thread seeking info on the Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45MM 1:2 lens. I've got one. It came off a camera that didn't work along with a Minolta tele-converter. Lens looked good so I kept that but the camera wasn't worth fixing.

Can you Minolta fans tell me more about it please? I'm trying to swap it on Craig's List and on a couple of forums for one I can use with my cameras but I really don't know much about the Minolta's really and it might actually help if I had something to tell someone when they ask about it other than "Uh, I don't know on this one, sorry..."

I have looked on those sites, but there's not a whole lot on the 45MM. Is it good? Very good?

Thanks!

 

[Cork]

The 45mm f/2 was an inexpensive normal lens that was produced in relatively large quantities, and as such does not have a great deal of value. As with most normal lenses, it is pretty sharp and because of its size it's a nice lightweight lens for one of the compact Minolta bodies. It's sometimes referred to as a "pancake" lens because of its small depth, but other camera makers had thinner ones.

Other people may disagree, but I personally would not pay more than $5 or $10 for one. Having said that, the model you have is "the one to have".

 

[M.A.Longmore]

I would pay $6.00 for the 45mm f/2, if it was attached to an SRT-101.
Whenever I come across them separately the most I would pay is $5.00.
It's the Rodney Dangerfield of lenses, It's a great lens that gets no respect.

Enjoy The Weekend


Ron
.

 

[lxdude]

Well mag, looks like you're gonna have to get yourself an old SRT 101 to attach to the lens. Just as enjoyable as your Spotmatics.

 

[magkelly]

Nope, nope, NOPE. You all are such shameless enablers! LOL Again, I have more than enough cameras! That cute little lens will just have to stay in my kit with it's tele-converter and and sulk until I find someone willing to swap me something I'd actually want for it. That's just it. I am NOT buying a Minolta camera just for one lens! I do appreciate the info though. It's nice to know it's worth something anyway.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

Hi Magkelly,

You would love the 45mm. f/2, if it was attached to an XE-7 !
Then the 45mm f/2, would finally get the respect that it deserves.
Use the APUG downtime to go searching for an XE-7.

Enjoy The Weekend


Ron

From The Long Island Of New York, and the
Long Island @ Large Format Group, right here on APUG
.

 

[lxdude]

Nope, nope, NOPE. I am NOT buying a Minolta camera just for one lens!

That's OK. Sooner or later someone will give you one anyway.

 

[Marvin]

I just got a 50mm f2.0 MD and I have have herd that it is a sharp lens just not as fast as the 1.7 or 1.4.

 

[dynachrome]

Someone, in an earlier posting, claimed that the XK has vertically running shutter. It has a horizontally running shutter. In that respect it's unusual in having an X flash synch speed of 1/100. The Nikon F3 has a flash synch speed of 1/80 and the Canon F-1N splits the difference at 1/90. All three cameras have titanium foil horizontal shutters. The Olympus OM-4 was unusual in that it had a top speed of 1/2000 with a cloth horizontal shutter. It's flash synch speed was still 1/60. Later Olympus would introduce flash units which pulsed as the shutter's slit traveled over the film plane. This gave an effectively higher synch speed, where action stopping was concerned, but the distance from the subject was limited by the power of the flash unit.

I am now up to my 14th Celtic lens (no zooms) and they are quite good. Many Minolta users prefer the MC Rokkor-X and early MD Rokkor-X lenses to the final MD series. The older lenses, especially the MC Rokkor-X models, have more heft to them. They are made with more metal and less plastic. I have two 58/1.4 MC Rokkors, three 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-Xs, two different 50/1.4MD Rokkor-Xs and the final 50/1.4 MD. The 58s have nice bokeh but are not as sharp as the later 50s. All of the 50/1.4s are good. I prefer the feel and look of the MC Rokkor-X lenses.

 

[lxdude]

I am of course compelled to add in the Pentax LX, With titanium foil shutter and sync speed of 1/75th.

Another 1/2000th cloth shutter was the Fujica ST801.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I honestly have no pref as to lens manu. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Sure my principles would dictate Rorrko-X all the way. However, my wallet hasn't the luxury of principles.

As to the pancake 45 f/2, it is a great SMALL lens. I used to have the fast 50's but I actually prefer this little ditty. And I would not expect it to even sell at all were I to put one up.

 

[2F/2F]

The lenses are excellent, IME.

I have had an X-700, and SRT-100, and an SRT-101. I have to say that I found the X-700 to be a royal pain in the ass compared to the other two. It seemed well built enough, and did the trick ok, but it had a few buttons and beepers that I never used and never really even figured out, failed to work without a battery, and had the silliest meter I have ever used. (It tells you what shutter speed to use, and then you set it on the camera...and in low light, I couldn't see what shutter speed it was telling me to use, as the only thing you see is a red dash.) I also did not like the sensitive electronic shutter release. I don't know how many accidental shots I took when I first started using it coming from a mechanical shutter release. It was hard to get a handle on when exactly it would fire when you were slowly pushing the button down. Fine camera quality wise, but not the most user friendly for a "manual-minded" photographer, IMHO.

The SRTs had everything I needed, and were simple and quick to operate coming from other manual SLRs (Canon and Nikon). They are also dirt cheap (well under $100 usually). I got both of mine for $25, with lenses, at a thrift shop.

In short, there is not one feature that the X-700 had over the SRTs that would make me want to use it instead of the SRTs...but it is a working camera, and if you get one for cheap.....

 

[ath]

I also did not like the sensitive electronic shutter release.

Actually that's one of the things I really like on the X700 - the responsive shutter (release). Have to agree about the viewfinder indicators though.

 

[lxdude]

... my principles would dictate Rorrko-X all the way.

Yeah, those lenses rock and rorr!

 

[rhmimac]

The SRTs had everything I needed, and were simple and quick to operate coming from other manual SLRs (Canon and Nikon). They are also dirt cheap (well under $100 usually). I got both of mine for $25, with lenses, at a thrift shop.

In short, there is not one feature that the X-700 had over the SRTs that would make me want to use it instead of the SRTs...but it is a working camera, and if you get one for cheap.....

I got an srT303b for my daughter, gracefully and slowly becoming an analog photog, for almost free(45€), MD50f1.7 included. I'm a bit jalous on her camera now.
I told a little story in another thread about it:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

rhmimac

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning;

This is impressive! This thread has been going for two (2) years!

I was one of the earlier people to comment on Minolta ROKKOR lenses back in the summer of 2008. The only real change I can actually report since then is that the number of different focal lengths of ROKKOR prime or single focal length lenses has changed from 17 to now 21 out of the 27 different focal lengths in lenses that Minolta made for the SR/MC/MD manual focus lens SLR cameras. Now it ranges from 16mm to 800mm. I still have not even seen a ROKKOR 7.5mm circular fisheye lens offered for sale. But, I also admit that most of what I want to do can be done with the 16mm lens. One criticism I can offer at this time is that people have discovered that the ROKKOR glass is good, and it can be fitted to several of the recent digital cameras also, so the prices for them have been going up in recent times. Well, it is not so much a criticism as it is a personal complaint.

The longevity of this thread must say something not only about the lenses themselves, but also about the appreciation for the lenses that their owners seem to share.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't worry about how good my lenses are, all I worry about is if my work is good enough to justify my owning them