Minolta 58/1.2 Rokkor

[One_DaveT]

Every once in a while I run accross what seems like fanatical devotion to this lens placing it in a legendary status. I even ran across two web sites that showed in great detail how to convert this to an EOS (EF) mount.

I would love to hear what others think of this lens, and how it compares to some recent modern designs (e.g. Sigma 50/1.4, Zeiss/Cosina 50/1.4). What is the draw to it? sharpness, contrast, bokeh, other characteristics? I assume there is something more to it than just the wide aperture as it appears to be held more dear than Nikon or Canon 50/1.2 on e-bay.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Sirius Glass]

I should not have sold it when the elements needed cleaning. It was much better than the f/1.4 and for f/1.7 50mm lenses that replaced it.

Steve

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Dave;

There are a couple of things about the Minolta 58 mm f 1.2 lens. Yes, it does gather light, and focusing with it is easier with the shallow depth of field. The "bokeh" or out of focus shape of highlights in the background is fairly pleasing with the contribution of the seven blades in the lens aperture. The contrast is certainly adequate, although I normally use a lens hood with mine. There is also something about the focal length of 58 mm. It is a nice lens to use. As with the similar Nikon lenses, it is best when stopped down two or three stops.

Regarding converting the back of the lens to a Canon EOS or EF mount, an even easier (and I think cheaper) way to go is to convert a Canon EOS camera to a Minolta SR or Manual Focus mount, and use the lens just as it is on the camera. That camera body conversion involves only changing the lens mounting flange on the Canon camera body, and it can be reversed to restore the Canon camera body back to original specification later if desired. A fellow in Italy is making these lens mount flange conversions for the Canon EOS cameras. You use the Minolta lens in its normal manual focusing and manual aperture setting modes, just as you normally would, but you are doing it on a later camera body. I think it is a great way to continue to use this good glass in a modern application. I do not know what to say about the economic characteristics.

 

[spotulate]

I bought this lens for it's speed and its bokeh. The bokeh is great imo.

 

[Chazzy]

Wasn't there also an MD 50mm or 55mm f/1.2? Is that a different design, or just the same thing with a new focal length designation?

 

[dynachrome]

There was a later 50/1.2 MD lens which is supposed to be much better that the 58. The 58 is mostly sought after for its out of focus rendition. Is the 58better than later 50/1.7 lenses? I don't think so. The 50/1.7 MD is an excellent lens and does not suffer from as much fall-off wide open as the 58. Where aesthetics are concerned the 58 wins. All versions are very pretty. I have a 58/1.4 MC with is a six element design and which also has nice out of focus rendition. In purely technical terms is isn't as good as the later 50/1.4 Rokkors but it has a nice look.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

Also the construction of the 58/1.2 allows easier conversion to other mounts (such as M42, Minolta AF ) than the 50/1.2. Rokkorfiles.com does a very good comparison of the 50 and 58 lenses.