Minolta Rokkor 200mm lens

[leicarfcam]

I have used the 200mm f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5 Minolta Rokkor lens over the years but have never compared quality differences. I currently have the f/4 version which I consider to be an excellent performer but was wondering what others think of the 3 versions..

Which do you think is best and why??

 

[lightdreamer]

I prefer the f4 200mm too. I use a early MD Rokkor (the large one) version and its sharp from wide open if I get the focus point right.

Two or three years ago I compared it against a M42 SMC Takumar 4 200mm and a Pentacon 4 200mm (yes the cream machine with the many apurture blades) and a Panagor 3.5 200mm on my digital A900 camera and would call it a draw concerning sharpness between the Rokkor and the Takumar, because the Takumar also impressed me with excellent sharpness and contrast.
The Panagor looses a very little bit in conrast, and the Pentacon is a complete different beast too, it has a complete differnt rendering and stopped down to f5.6 its sharp too but not as biting as the Rokkor or the Takumar.

My MC Rokkor 3.5 200mm is a very little bit softer wide open compared to my Rokkor f4 and larger and heavier in the bag.

I have never used the f4.5.

What can I tell? I love them all they are all very good lenses (outresolving the A900 24MP sensor in the center), and I would never mind using any of these lenses.

BG lightdreamer

 

[leicarfcam]

I also have the f/4 version but may get the other two and do a comparison between them.

They seen to be going fairly cheap on eBay..

 

[dynachrome]

I have three versions of the f/3.5 lens, an f/4 and an f/4.5. The f/3.5s are an Auto Rokkor, an MC Rokkor (2nd version-aperture ring at the rear of the lens) and an MC Rokkor-X. My f/4.5 is an MC Rokkor and the f/4 is an MD. I have done very little witrh the Auto Rokkor. The MC Rokkor is excellent and the MC Rokkor-X is also excellent and better coated. The f/4.5 is a decent lens if you are shooting in bright light. The f/4 follows the trend of other manufacturers. Konica made a 200/3.5 and later replaced is with a smaller f/4. Asahi did this years earlier. There was a 200/3.5 pre-set Takumar and later the 200/4 Super Takumar. If I remember my weights the 200/4 is actually lighter than the older 200/4.5. The 200/4 is a good lens and my 200/4 MC and MD Celtic lenses seem to be identical to it. My favorite is the 200/3.5 MC Rokkor-X and I think it's the sharpest of the bunch. The 200/4 would be next and the 200/4.5 not far behind. There was at least one Celtic version of the f/4.5 lens. I especially like using the f/3.5 wide open with a 360PX flash and 800 speed film. The range is very good. I have never used the 200/2.8 MD but one of my 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 lenses is in M42 mount so I can use it on a Minolta with an adapter. I think the Panagor 200/3.5 which was mentioned is the same as the 200/3.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount.

 

[rolleiman]

Years ago, the Minolta Rokkor lenses were reckoned to be the closest to Leica in quality terms. It's no coincidence that several Leitz "R" lenses are the result of a joint project between Leitz & Minolta.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning;

Glad to see that someone did mention that there was also the MINOLTA MD TELE ROKKOR 1:2.8 f=200mm lens. And I do admit that, while there are copies of these lenses here, no, I have not yet run any kind of a comparison between them.

As a quick comment, there were never any real differences between the ROKKOR lenses and the ROKKOR-X lenses. That "-X" suffix was only engraved onto lenses that were headed for North America to MInoltaUSA and were marked that way in order to clearly qualify for the MinoltaUSA "M-tag Warranty" program. MinoltaUSA was the major seller of Minolta lenses at that time, and they could ask for that special engraving for the lenses coming to them. They wanted to avoid possible problems with the "grey market" and questions of warranty. They were made on the same assembly line using the same parts that had lens elements coated in the same way. There is no real difference in the way that the two were made. There was one rumor that the "-X" lenses may have received some additional quality control checking, but that is the only thing I have ever found. Please note also that the "-X" distinction was dropped in the middle 1980s.

 

[leicarfcam]

Good morning;

Glad to see that someone did mention that there was also the MINOLTA MD TELE ROKKOR 1:2.8 f=200mm lens. And I do admit that, while there are copies of these lenses here, no, I have not yet run any kind of a comparison between them.

As a quick comment, there were never any real differences between the ROKKOR lenses and the ROKKOR-X lenses. That "-X" suffix was only engraved onto lenses that were headed for North America to MInoltaUSA and were marked that way in order to clearly qualify for the MinoltaUSA "M-tag Warranty" program. MinoltaUSA was the major seller of Minolta lenses at that time, and they could ask for that special engraving for the lenses coming to them. They wanted to avoid possible problems with the "grey market" and questions of warranty. They were made on the same assembly line using the same parts that had lens elements coated in the same way. There is no real difference in the way that the two were made. There was one rumor that the "-X" lenses may have received some additional quality control checking, but that is the only thing I have ever found. Please note also that the "-X" distinction was dropped in the middle 1980s.

I've seen a couple of f/2.8 versions around but never had one. If I can find one at a reasonable price I may pick it up..

 

[hoffy]

Years ago, the Minolta Rokkor lenses were reckoned to be the closest to Leica in quality terms. It's no coincidence that several Leitz "R" lenses are the result of a joint project between Leitz & Minolta.

Shhhhhh....don't tell everyone, You'll drive the prices up